Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The investigation further revealed that the accused persons were part of an organised crime syndicate headed by co-accused Rahul Sharma. Consequently, the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 were invoked. During custodial interrogation, the accused Rahul Sharma and Arjun Singh voluntarily expressed their willingness to confess and accordingly, their confessional statements under Section 18 of the MCOC Act were recorded by the competent officer. It is noted that some of the accused are still absconding. On completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the arrested accused persons.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant in Bail Application No.4473 of 2024, and the learned Advocate representing the applicant in Bail Application No.4531 of 2024, have advanced submissions in support of their respective applications. Insofar as the applicant in Bail Application No.4473 of 2024 is concerned, it is submitted that the role attributed to him is that of a conspirator in the alleged plan to eliminate the 3-ba4473-2024.doc deceased, Samay Chauhan. The primary material relied upon by the prosecution to implicate him consists of two confessional statements recorded under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act), by co-accused persons. In addition, the prosecution relies upon the statements of two witnesses--one of whom has allegedly seen the applicant visiting co-accused Subhash Thakur at the Banaras Hindu University Hospital, and another who claims to have been directed by the applicant to dispose of certain belongings of the accused persons after the incident. It is further submitted that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and is otherwise a law-abiding citizen. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), opposing both applications, submits that the material on record discloses a well- planned and premeditated conspiracy to eliminate the deceased, executed in furtherance of an organised crime syndicate. It is submitted that the applicants were not only aware of the plan but actively participated in its design and execution. Particular emphasis is laid on the confessional statements of co-accused recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act, which according to the prosecution, are voluntary and corroborated by other material. The learned APP submits that the applicants had approached co- accused Subhashsing Thakur, a convict undergoing life imprisonment, who was at the relevant time receiving treatment at Banaras Hindu University Hospital. The applicants are alleged to have visited him in the hospital and entrusted him with the task of eliminating the deceased by offering a contract for his murder. In pursuance thereof, co-accused Rahul Sharma, Abhishek Singh, and Arjun Singh were sent to Virar in June 2021; however, the plan could not be executed at that time. The learned APP submits that these circumstances, taken together, constitute sufficient material to connect the applicants to the offence, and hence, the 3-ba4473-2024.doc applications do not merit favourable consideration.

10. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocate and the learned Advocate appearing for the respective applicants, as well as the contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the applications. I have also perused the material placed on record, including the charge-sheet, statements of witnesses, and confessional statements under Section 18 of the MCOC Act.

11. Insofar as the applicant in Bail Application No.4473 of 2024 is concerned, the material on record shows that the role attributed to him is of a conspirator. The prosecution relies heavily on confessional statements of co-accused and two witnesses--one of whom is said to have seen the applicant meeting co-accused Subhash Thakur at the Banaras Hindu University Hospital, and another who was allegedly told by the applicant to dispose of the belongings of accused persons. The statements of the said two witnesses, though relevant, are based on events that occurred in circumstances which may require scrutiny at the stage of trial. Prima facie, no overt act has been attributed to the applicant in furtherance of the actual execution of the offence.