Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8 So far as applicant Virendra s/o Sopanrao Kanoji (Bhandari) (applicant in B.A. No.1010/2020), learned Counsel Mr.Godhamgaonkar submits that the First Information Report came to be lodged against unknown persons. There is no allegation about participation or any overt act on the part of this applicant in the commission of crime. Even in the supplementary statement, the informant has not attributed any role to this applicant in the commission of crime. The informant, in the supplementary statement, referred to the statement of his nephew Krishna, who informed him, before the doctors of Global Hospital informed him about the bullet injury sustained by the informant, the present applicant stated that informant is injured by bullet. In his statement, Krishna, nephew of informant, has stated that after admission of the injured informant in the hospital, applicant came there and shown his readiness for carrying the injured for special treatment in the hospital outside {8} ba85020.odt Nanded. The learned Counsel, thus, submits that neither the offences under the Indian Penal Code nor under Maharashtra Control Of Organized Crime Act are attracted in this case. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the ratio laid down in the case of Bhupendra @ Golu Suryakant Borkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1561 and (ii) Mangesh Manik Kanchan & another Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2016 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 350 The learned Counsel, thus, submits that the applicant is not involved in any other offence. The learned Counsel submits that the applicant may be released on bail. 9 Mr.V.D.Sapkal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for applicant Vinod Dayalu Dighore (B.A.No.895 of 2020) submits that at the relevant time, the applicant was working as Police Inspector at Mangrulpeer Police Station, District Washim. The learned Senior Counsel submits that on the basis of supplementary statement of the informant and his son, the applicant is implicated in the present rime. It is submitted that the provisions of MCOC Act are not applicable against present applicant as the requirements in respect of continuing unlawful activity, organized crime and crime syndicate, which are required to be satisfed, are not fulflled. In support of this contention, {9} ba85020.odt the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2277 and in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal and another, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1339. The learned Senior Counsel submits that no specifc role is attributed to the present applicant. Neither there is any abetment nor there is any previous offence registered against the applicant to attract provisions of Maharashtra Control Of Organized Crime Act. The learned Senior Counsel submits that there is no previous sanction granted by the Special Inspector General of Police, Nanded Range, Nanded for registering the offence under the provisions of MCOC Act. The learned Senior Counsel, thus, submits that the applicant may be released on bail. 10 Argument advanced by Mr.Satej S. Jadhav, learned Counsel for applicant Gurucharangsingh s/o Sampurnsingh Gill (applicant in Bail Application No.905/2020) is on similar lines, as argued by the learned Counsel appearing for other applicants. The learned Counsel submits that the applicant is arrested on the basis of statement of co-Baccused. Though there is recovery of gun and 7.65 caliber bullet from him, there is recovery of gun {10} ba85020.odt capable of fring both 7.65 and 0.32 caliber bullets from co-Baccused Raju. He submits that bullet of 0.32 caliber was recovered from the informant's body. It is submitted that except the present crime, the applicant is not co-Baccused in any crime with other accused in this crime. The learned Counsel submits that, therefore, provisions of MCOC Act are not attracted against the present applicant. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the applicant may be released on bail. 11 A common afdavit-Bin-Breply is fled in these four bail applications on behalf of the Respondent-BState, sworn in by Dr.Siddheshwar Baliram Bhore, Sub Divisional Police Ofcer, Itwara, Nanded. In paragraph no. 4 of the afdavit, it is stated that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused had committed the crime for monetary benefts in an organized manner and, therefore, provisions of MCOC Act are added under the order passed by the Special Inspector General of Police, Nanded Range, Nanded, on 20 th November, 2019. It is stated that out of eight, seven accused persons were arrested and seized muddemal property was sent to C.A., however, the C.A. report is awaited. It is stated that overall, statements of 16 witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is stated in the afdavit that during the {11} ba85020.odt course of investigation, confessional statement of arrested accused Virendra Kanoji was recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act, which supports the case of the prosecution. It has come in the afdavit that the Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Mumbai, has granted permission to fle charge sheet under the provisions of MCOC Act against the accused in the present crime. It is stated in the afdavit that thorough investigation was carried out and there is recovery of country made pistols and live rounds. It is submitted that Air gun was recovered from accused Gurucharansingh and accused no.5 Raju Raut. It is submitted that the ballistic report reveals that the hole caused to the clothes on the person of the injured informant is caused by the bullet found in his body. The examination report in respect of pistol recovered from accused Gurucharansingh @ Lucky reveals that the country made pistol recovered from him is capable of chambering and fring 7.65 mm pistol cartridges. It is further stated that the examination report also reveals that the Air Gun and Country made Pistol and live rounds seized from the house of accused Subhash Pawar, at the instance of accused Raju Raut, are in working condition and the same were used for fring prior to their receipt in the laboratory and the country made hand-Bgun is capable of chambering and fring 7.65 mm pistol cartridge as well as 0.32 inch revolver {12} ba85020.odt cartridge. The chart in respect of each applicant in respective Bail Applications, disclosing sufcient material against them showing their involvement in the aforesaid crime, is also annexed with the afdavit-Bin-Breply.

24 I have carefully perused the statements of the witnesses at page nos.47, 129, 49 and 130. Prima facie, it appears that statements of these witnesses indicate involvement {22} ba85020.odt of the applicants-Baccused persons in the commission of crime in an organized manner as member of the gang.

25 Learned Counsel Mr.Godhamgaonkar, while arguing the case on behalf of co-Baccused Virendra, vehemently submitted that except the evidence that the applicant-BVirendra used to chat on whatsapp with co-Baccused Harvindersingh @ Rindha, there is no connecting evidence against the applicant. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the order dated 09 th November, 2020, passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.370 of 2020 (Rajendra s/o Gulabrao Armarkar Vs. State of Maharashtra), wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court at Nagpur has granted bail to the accused persons in connection with the crime registered under the provisions of MCOC Act. In terms of provisions of sub-Bsection (4) of Section 21 of the MCOC Act, no person accused of an offence punishable under MCOC Act shall be released on bail unless the Court is satisfed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The learned Single Judge has referred to the decision in the case of Narendra Singh and another Vs. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the restrictions on the part of the Court to grant {23} ba85020.odt bail should not be pushed too far and the bail may be granted having regard to the material brought on record if the Court is satisfed that in all probability, the accused may not be ultimately convicted. It is also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the provisions of MCOC Act must receive a strict construction so as pass the test of reasonableness. 26 Learned Counsel Mr.Godhamgaonkar has further placed reliance on the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagan, reported in 2011 (5) MLJ 386, wherein the Full Bench, while answering the reference as regards ingredients necessary to make out the case of an organized crime, as defned under the MCOC Act, has held that, the following ingredients will be necessary to make the case of an organized crime. Those ingredients are: (i) that there has to be continuing unlawful activities; (ii) that such activity will have to be by an individual, singly or jointly; (iii) that such an activity is either by a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate;

(iv) that there has to be use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means; (v) that such an activity has to be with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefts, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for the person who undertakes such an activity or any other person or {24} ba85020.odt promoting insurgency.

27 In the supplementary statement of the informant dated 07.12.2019, he has explained about the threat received from co-Baccused gang leader Harvindersingh @ Rindha. In the frst supplementary statement informant named applicant Virendra along with applicant API Vinod Dighore in respect of meeting of "settlement" scheduled at the house of applicant Virendra on 03.12.2019. Furthermore, applicant-Baccused Virendra already knew about the gun shot injury though nature of the said injury was not disclosed by the informant to anybody till that time. Thus, the only inference, that can be drawn, is that applicant-Baccused Virendra was knowing about the fring and injury by bullet sustained by the informant on his back. I have carefully gone through the statements of the witnesses at page nos.61, 133, 63, 134, 68, 69, 75 and the confessional statement of applicant-Baccused Virendra from page nos.149 to 154. Thus, so far as the ingredients explained in the case cited supra, prima facie there is evidence to attract those ingredients. 28 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Sapkal, appearing for the applicant-Baccused API Vinod Dighore, submits that the applicant was working in the Local Crime Branch, Nanded since 2015 to {25} ba85020.odt 2018. He has been transferred from Nanded to MangrulPeer, District Washim on 21.06.2019. The alleged incident has occurred on 17.08.2021 i.e. after two months from his transfer. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in the supplementary statement of the informant and his son, the applicant-Baccused API Vinod Dighore came to be implicated in this case. The learned Senior Counsel submits that permission was sought by the Investigating Ofcer against 13 persons for addition of provisions of MCOC Act and the name of the applicant API Vinod Dighore was not mentioned in those 13 persons. The Special Inspector General of Police, Nanded, has passed an order on 20.11.2019 granting approval to include provisions of Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act in the present Crime No.176/2019 and fnally, approval was granted under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act by the Special Inspector General of Police, Nanded, against six persons. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the applicant API Vinod, since was working in Local Crime Branch, Nanded, provisions of Section 3(2) and Section 24 of the MCOC Act were made applicable to him. The learned Senior Counsel submits that there are certain conditions required to be satisfed and those are, there should be continuing unlawful activity by organized crime syndicate and there should be a organized crime. The MCOC Act specifcally provides the {26} ba85020.odt defnition of abetment under Section 2(1)(a) of the MCOC Act. Unless all these requirements are satisfed, the person cannot be held guilty thereof. The learned Senior Counsel, in order to substantiate his contention, placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2277. The learned Senior Counsel has particularly placed reliance on paragraphs no.30 to 33, which reads as under:

30 The learned Senior Counsel submits that there is no role attributed to the applicant API Vinod Dighore nor any allegations about abetment are made against him. There is no previous charge sheet against the applicant in respect of any {34} ba85020.odt crime which would attract provisions of Section 23 of the MCOC Act. There is no previous sanction granted by the Special Inspector General of Police for registering the offence under the provisions of MCOC Act against the present applicant API Vionod. 31 I have carefully gone through the statements of the informant. It is shocking that before the informant has disclosed about the threats extended to him by co-Baccused gang leader Harvindersingh @ Rindha, applicant API Vinod, on his own, has made a phone call to the informant making a query with him as to whether he has received call on his mobile giving threats from co-Baccused gang leader Harvindersingh @ Rindha. It is equally surprising that the applicant, who is holding a responsible post in the police department, instead of directing registration of the crime and taking any preventive steps, called the informant in the house of co-Baccused applicant Virendra for "settlement" talk. It is difcult to understand the meaning of "settlement". The informant must have been frightened by the threatening calls for demand of ransom Rs.One crore as also that after receiving said call in the night, the applicant API Vinod Dighore has called him asking him about the details of the threatening calls and after arranging meeting for "settlement". I have gone through the statements of the witnesses from page nos.53, 124, 75, 80, 99 {35} ba85020.odt and 114 to 120. There is also confessional statement of applicant-Baccused Gurucharansingh. Prima facie, there is evidence about assisting the organized crime syndicate which includes communication and association. Thus, prima facie, there are reasons to believe that the applicant-Baccused API Vinod Dighore is engaged in assisting the organized crime syndicate. 32 In the case of Vinod G. Asrani Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007 AIR (SC) 1253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act. In paragraphs no.8 and 9 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made following observations: