Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Kiran Srinivas Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 February, 2019

Author: Prakash D. Naik

Bench: Prakash D. Naik

                                         1 of 6                        904.BA.3352.2018.doc




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3352 OF 2018

 Aanand Bhimu Jadhav, Age 21 years,
 Occ.Labour, R/o.At Room No.2,
 Jiwan Sheth Chawl, Gundawali,
 Tal.Bhiwandi, Dist.Thane.                                               Applicant
       versus
 Senior Inspector of Police and another                                  Respondents

                                 WITH
               CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1510 OF 2018

 Genusing Somlunayak Chauhan, Age 33 years,
 R/o.Post Kanyakolur, Japa Nayak Tanda,
 Tal.Sahapur, District Yadgir, Karnataka State.                          Applicant
         versus
 The State of Maharashtra                                                Respondent

                                 WITH
               CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1924 OF 2018

 Kiran Srinivas Chavan, Age 30 years,
 R/o.House No.4-140, Vijay Laxmi Street,
 Humnabad, Dist.Bidar, Karnataka.                                        Respondent
       versus
 The State of Maharashtra                                                Respondent


 Mr.Balwant Salunkhe for applicant in BA No.3352/2018.

 Mr.Santosh M. Deshpande for applicant in BA No.1510/2018.

 Mr.Aabad Ponda                I/by   Karma   Vivan      for     applicant       in     BA
 No.1924/2018.

 Mr.Prashant Jadhav, APP, for State.

                                  CORAM :         PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
                                  DATE :          14th February 2019




::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019                           ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 11:30:41 :::
                                     2 of 6                    904.BA.3352.2018.doc




 PC :


 1.       The applicants in all these applications are seeking bail under
 Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with
 CR No.I-07 of 2017 registered with Kongaon Police Station for
 offences under Sections 395, 365, 201, 120B, 411, 412 of Indian
 Penal Code r/w Sections 3(I),(II), 3(2), 3(4) of Maharashtra Control
 of Organized Crime Act (`MCOC Act').             The applicant in Bail
 Application No.3352 of 2018 was arrested on 13th February 2017.
 The applicant in Bail Application No.1510 of 2018 was arrested on
 8th March 2017, whereas applicant in Bail Application No.1924 of
 2018 is arrested on 8th March 2017.


 2.       The prosecution case is that the complainant is resident of
 Kalyan, District Thane. He is employee of company viz Proconnect
 Supply Solutions Limited as Assistant General Manager. The said
 company is having its godown at Gala Nos.1 to 10, Building No.E/6,
 behind Cipla Company, Pimpalas Road, Pimplas Gaon, Tal.Bhiwandi
 wherein electronic goods of various companies are stored. About 50
 persons are working in the said godown. Several security guards are
 deputed for security in the said godown.              On 10-1-2017 the
 complainant received telephonic call from the security guard
 informing him that theft has taken place in the godown of the
 company.         The complainant immediately rushed to the spot.              On
 reaching the godown it was revealed that shutter no.11 of the
 godown was broken and the accused had committed theft of mobile
 phones, I-Pods, Chargers and USB cables valued at Rs.42,19,490/-.
 The complainant thereafter lodged complaint in respect of said theft
 with Kongaon Police Station against unknown persons. The offence




::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019                  ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 11:30:41 :::
                                          3 of 6                    904.BA.3352.2018.doc


 as stated hereinabove was registered. The spot panchanama was
 recorded. Subsequently the accused were arrested. Approval was
 sought for application of provisions of MCOC Act in accordance with
 Section 23(1) of the said Act. Sanction was accorded for application
 of provisions of MCOC Act.               The applicants were remanded to
 custody from time to time. On completing investigation charge sheet
 has been filed.


 3.       Learned counsel representing the accused submitted that the
 provisions of MCOC Act are not attracted in the present case. There
 is no evidence to show that the applicant were the members of
 organized crime syndicate.             The prosecution is relying upon the
 confession of one of the accused Santosh Chavan recorded u/s 18 of
 MCOC Act.              It is a weak piece of evidence and requires
 corroboration.            Considering the nature of evidence against
 applicants, embargo enunciated u/s 21(4) of MCOC Act is not
 attracted against applicants.


 4.       Learned counsel for applicants in respective applications
 submitted that there is no cogent evidence against applicants. The
 provisions of MCOC Act are not applicable against them. The co-
 accused Laxman Chavan, Sanjaykumar @ Munna Babu Bula were
 granted bail in Bail Application Nos.571 of 2018 and 945 of 2018.


 5.       Learned counsel for applicant in BA No.3352 of 2018
 submitted that there is no evidence to establish his link with the
 crime syndicate.              There are no antecedents against him.               The
 prosecution is relying on the confession of the co-accused which is
 not corroborated by any evidence. It is further submitted that there
 is no identification parade identifying the applicant as the person




::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019                       ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 11:30:41 :::
                                       4 of 6                    904.BA.3352.2018.doc


 who is involved in the crime.           Except recovery of three mobile
 phones at the instance of applicant, there is no evidence to show his
 complicity in the crime.           The advocate for applicant in Bail
 Application No.1510 of 2018 submitted that there is no evidence of
 identification parade against him and there is no recovery of any
 nature against him.           Even there is no CDR record to show his
 involvement in the crime. There is no evidence of his participation in
 the crime and the prosecution is merely relying on the confessional
 statement of co-accused Santosh Chavan.            Whereas, advocate for
 applicant in Bail Application No.1924 of 2018 submitted that there is
 lack of evidence to establish his connection with organized crime
 syndicate.        It is submitted that at the most the involvement of
 applicant can be attributed to the charge of receiver of stolen
 property.        The prosecution has not been able to show that the
 applicant is member of organized crime syndicate to invoke the
 provisions of MCOC Act. It is submitted that the applicant is arrested
 on the basis of statement of Kishor Budhwant. It is submitted that
 confessional statement of Santosh Chavan in fact exonerates the
 applicant from being involved in the crime. The case of prosecution
 with reference to exchange of cash amount towards sale of mobile
 phones cannot be accepted because the alleged act had occurred
 during the period of demonetization and it would not have been
 possible to arrange cash as indicated in the statement of witnesses. It
 is further submitted that the evidence of witnesses relied upon by
 prosecution suffers from various infirmities in the nature of
 contradiction and it is difficult to accept the said evidence. It is
 submitted that there is no parade to corroborate the involvement of
 applicant in the crime. He is in custody from the date of arrest.




::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019                    ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 11:30:41 :::
                                   5 of 6                    904.BA.3352.2018.doc


 6.       Learned APP on the contrary submitted that there is evidence
 to show involvement of applicants in crime. It is submitted that the
 prosecution is relying on the confessional statement of co-accused
 Santosh Chavan recorded u/s 18 of MCOC Act. It is submitted that
 the said accused has shown involvement of accused in the crime. It
 is further submitted that applicant in Bail Application No.3352 of
 2018 was instrumental in bringing the tempo. It is submitted that in
 the confessional statement of the co-accused it is indicated that the
 applicant in Bail Application No.3352 of 2018 had brought tempo
 which was used in commission of crime. It is further submitted that
 one another case is registered against applicants in Bail Application
 No.1510 of 2018 and 1924 of 2018.          However, learned counsel
 representing applicants submitted that in the said case, the
 applicants were arrested after the arrest was shown in present case.
 The said case was registered against unknown persons and the
 applicants are released on bail. As observed hereinabove, as far as
 applicant in Bail Application No.3352 of 2018 is concerned, there is
 no identification parade. Except recovery of three mobile phones,
 there is no other evidence against him. Similarly as far as applicant
 in Bail Application No.1510 of 2018 is concerned, except
 confessional statement recorded u/s 18 of MCOC Act of co-accused,
 there is no evidence against the applicant. His role in the crime is
 not established. As far as applicant in Bail Application No.1920 of
 2018 is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon recovery of 11
 mobile phones. However, as stated above, there are discrepancies in
 the evidence of witnesses relied upon by prosecution.              There is
 nothing on record to link the applicant as the person who is the
 member of organized crime syndicate.       There are no other cases
 against him except the case in which he was arrested after he is




::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019                ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 11:30:41 :::
                                     6 of 6                       904.BA.3352.2018.doc


 shown arrested in the present case to show that he was involved in
 the activities of organized crime syndicate.                The confessional
 statement of the co-accused also does not show any corroborative
 circumstance against the said applicant as person who is involved in
 any crime. The applicants are in custody from the date of arrest.
 Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed.


 7.       Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature
 of evidence against the applicants in these applications, the rigors of
 Section 21(4) of MCOC Act would not be attracted in present cases.
 Hence, case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, I pass following
 order :


                                  ORDER

(i) Criminal Bail Application No.3352 of 2018, Criminal Bail Application No.1510 of 2018 and Criminal Bail Application No.1924 of 2018 are allowed and disposed off;

(ii) The applicants in these Criminal Bail Applications be released on bail in connection with CR No.I-07 of 2017 registered with Kongaon Police Station, on their furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount;

(iii) The applicants in these Bail Applications are directed to report Kongaon Police Station once in a month on every first Saturday between 10 am and 12 noon till conclusion of trial;

(iv) The applicants in these Bail Applications shall attend the Trial Court regularly on dates of hearing of the case, unless exempted by the said Court for some reason.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 11:30:41 :::