Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Considering the antecedents to the discredit of the applicants, the Additional Director General of Police (L & O), Maharashtra State, Mumbai granted sanction to prosecute the applicants under the provisions of MCOCA Act.

4. This is a third Bail Application of Uttam Mahajan Ghunawant. His earlier bail applications were rejected after considering the material placed before the Court. Applicant - Uttam is claiming the bail on the ground that the presence of the applicant on the spot of the incident was suspicious. The applicant was granted bail in another crime registered at the instance of the deceased. The statement of witness Manju Raosaheb Ghayal is contradictory. The statement of co-accused Pratik Mlind Hivrale under section 164 1103.22BA+.odt of the Code of Criminal Procedure also appears not true. The confessional statements of Sumersing and Dadu are inadmissible. In a CCTV footage at Beer Bar, the applicant is not seen. There is no iota of evidence and legally admissible direct or indirect evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. There was no charge-sheet against the applicant more than one. Hence, the provisions of MCOCA Act would not attract. There is inordinate delay in completing the trial and there is no possibility of commencement and completion of trial in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.10.2019 without material progress in the trial. Pending several cases cannot be a ground for refusal of bail. There was previous enmity, therefore, there is a great possibility of false implication. Mere sustaining fire arm injury does not prima facie show the complicity of the applicant in the alleged crime. The prosecution has no evidence that the applicant was involved in the Organized crime with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefit or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or for any other person. The applicant is not the member of the Organized Crime Syndicate. In the earlier case registered against the applicant, there was no evidence against the applicant to prove his involvement. Lastly, he claimed the parity.

1103.22BA+.odt

5. Learned counsel for applicants Rajsing @ Kuldeepsing and Gautam Madhukar Sonune adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for applicant Uttam. However, in addition thereto, he has vehemently argued that applicant Rajsing was not in a business of supplying labours. He was arrested on 26.06.2020. Nothing is recovered from him. He has been involved on the statement of the co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. There is no memoranda below the sanction as required under rule 3(6) of the MCOCA Act. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Mohamad Iqbal Farooq Sheikh and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 All MR (Cri) 631. The sanction order initiating prosecution against the applicant under MCOCA Act is defective. He has been arraigned as an accused only because he has been an accused in various cases. However, in two cases, he has been acquitted. Similarly situated co-accused Sunil Premdas Vanarase has been granted bail, hence parity may be extended to him.

1103.22BA+.odt

7. The State has strongly opposed the bail applications. Bail application of Uttam Mahajan Ghunawat has been opposed on the ground of no change in circumstance. Applicant Rajsing was heading the organization. There are eye witnesses stating against him. Rule 3(6) of the MCOCA Act have been complied with. Section 18 of the MCOCA Act has also been complied with. There were 13 crimes against Rajsing. Reading material collected by the prosecution together, the prosecution has ample evidence to prima facie show the organized crime and activities of the accused were for financial benefit. The deceased was eliminated for the financial benefits as he was taking the labour contracts. The offences are serious. There is a great possibility of absconding. Hence the applications may be dismissed.

10. The continuous activities threatening the deceased not to take labour contract must have spread the industrial unrest. Indirectly, the labourers must have been frightened. Making the employees indirectly unemployed is a sort of insurgency. Insurgency is the one of ground to refuse bail under MCOCA Act. As far as non-compliance of rule 3(6) of the MCOCA Rules is concerned, that may be considered on merit. Admissibility of confessional statement is also subject to test before the Court on merit.