Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondents.

2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.0119 of 2022 registered with Vimantal Police Station, Nanded, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, "MCOC Act") and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

5. Opposing the application, the learned A.P.P. would refer to the statement of the one of the co-accused under Section 18 of the MCOC Act. He argued that the appointment of the applicant on the say of co-accused Hardi and Sunny Major, cannot be disbelieved. The statement under Section 18 of the MCOC Act can be received in evidence. It was a voluntary statement of the co- accused. From the statement it appears that the applicant was one of the conspirators and supporters of the main accused, who was involved in the organized crime. Rinda is an international criminal and used to kill the persons for ransom. The deceased was one of his victims. The applicant was in contacts with one co- accused Harish who was the main person looking after the play cards club at Joshi lodge. He has vehemently argued that a red 4 922-BA-595-23.odt corner notice has been issued against the international criminal Rinda who is now in Pakistan. The offence is serious. Prima facie evidence is available against the applicant. Hence, he may not be granted bail.

6. In reply, the learned senior counsel for the applicant would submit that the statement of co-accused Harish is not strict compliance with Section 18 of the MCOC Act. It does not bear the place and time of recording voluntary statement of co-accused Harish. Therefore, it is not admissible as contemplated under Section 18 of the MCOC Act.

7. The learned A.P.P. has gone through the papers and took instructions from the Investigating Officer to verify whether three crimes as mentioned in the order of the Sessions Court were registered against the applicant. After verifying the fact, he states that those crimes were not against the applicant. However, he failed to point out that any crime registered against the applicant except the present crime. In view of the facts, it is doubtful whether the applicant can be arraigned as an accused under MCOC Act.