The High Court at Aurangabad considered a criminal application for regular bail. The court found a strong prima facie case against the applicant and held that granting bail would defeat the purpose of the prosecution under the MCOCA. The application was rejected.
Application for regular bail rejected; no bail granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1crap219.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 219 OF 2012
Shaikh Chand @ Baba s/o
Shaikh Bahsir
...Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents
Shri A.B.Gaikwad, Advocate for applicant
Shri R.P.Phatke, A.P.P. for respondents
CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J.
DATED : 16.02.2012.
PER COURT :-
1. This is an application for regular bail.
2.The applicant is one of the accused named in
Crime No. 1 of 2011, registered at Osmanpura police
station, Tq. and District Aurangabad, for the offences
punishable under Sections 394, 397 of the Indian Penal
Code r/w Sections 3(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for
short, �M.C.O.C. Act�).
2
crap219.12
3.Heard learned Advocate Shri A.B.Gaikad for the
applicant at length.
4.Perused the case diary.
5.Learned Advocate Shri Gaikwad has argued
following points :-
(a)The offence subject matter is
first ever offence under M.C.O.C. Act,
against the applicant. Unless earlier
offence under M.C.O.C. Act is
registered, no fresh offence could be
registered.
(b)Various offences incorporated in
theproposalforsanctionof
registration of offence under M.C.O.C.
Act are based on confessional
statements of the co-accused, and hence
illegal.
(c)Registration of those offences
and filing of charge sheet is
untenable, and hence, offence subject
matter is illegally registered.
(d)The F.I.R. Does not contain an
accusation that the applicant is
involved in �continuing unlawful
activity� as defined in Section 2(1)(d)
of the M.C.O.C. Act.
3
crap219.12
6.Learned Advocate has placed reliance on two
reported judgments :-
(i)2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2961
[State of Maharashtra vs Jagan
Gangansingh Nepali @ Jagya and
anr. AND Smt. Sandhya Prafulla
Patil]
(ii) 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2100 [State of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra Taru]7.Perusal of the documents annexed with the
application and the case diary indicates as follows :-
(a)Name of present applicant Shaikh
Chand @ Baba s/o Shaikh Bashir is shown
as a member of Organized Crimes
Syndicate.
(b)Though the applicant has not been
shown involved in each and every offence
referred to in the F.I.R./proposal, he
has been named as an offender in one
offence in relation to which charge sheet
is filed.
(c)The confessional statement of co-
accused is not bare confessional
statement, however, is supported by
recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act.
crap219.12
4
(d)Being a member of an Organized
Crimes Syndicate and filing of one charge
sheet in Crime No. 395 of 2009 is duly
borne on record.
(e)The background that there exist an
Organized Crimes Syndidate, of which the
applicant, seems to be a member and there
are many more offences, which are under
investigation is adequately described.
(f)Thereisadequatematerial
available against the applicant to
describe his involvement in commission of
offence under M.C.O.C. Act.
(g)It is also seen that various
offences, in which applicant is an
accused and all these offences pertain to
pecuniary gain and livelihood of the
applicant being fetched from the crimes,
are pending in court.
8.It is thus seen that there is strong prima facie
case against the applicant. The purpose of prosecution
under M.C.O.C. Act will be defeated if bail is granted.
9.Grounds raised in support of prayer for bail are
superficial and have no merit. Case law relied upon by
the applicant does not help him.
5crap219.12
10.In the background, prima facie, the applicant is
not entitled to grant of bail.
11. Therefore, Application fails and is rejected.
(A.H.JOSHI, J.)
dbm/crap219.12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail given the prima facie case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act.
Whether the grounds raised by the application for bail had any merit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra vs Jagan Gangansingh Nepali @ Jagya and anrReferred¶25
2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2961
State of Maharashtra vs Rahul Ramchandra TaruReferred¶25
2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2100
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shaikh Chand @ Baba
The State of Maharashtra
A.H. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court