Allowed

Mubarak @ Papya Khwaja Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Oct 2012BA/1211/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay considered two bail applications under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. The applicants were alleged to have had peripheral roles (providing refreshments, hiring a vehicle). The court granted bail pending trial, reasoning that peripheral involvement and existing charges did not justify detention which would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 1,00,000- each with solvent sureties in Rs. 1,00,000-/ each, conditioned to stay in Nashik City and report to police station weekly.

Mubarak @ Papya Khwaja Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

BAG-1342.2012

¶2

sjs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL
APPLICATION NO.1342 OF 2012

¶4

{For Bail}

¶5

Dattatray Baburao Karpe.... Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

WITH

¶7

APPLICATION NO.1211 OF 2012 {For Bail}

¶8

Mubarak @ Laddya Khwaja
Shaikh.... Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶9

S/Shri Santosh Maske with M.S. Kadu
for the Applicant in BA-1342/2012.
Shri C.M. Kothari for the Applicant
in BA-1211/2012.
Ms G.P. Mulekar, APP, for the State.

¶10

CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.

¶11

DATED: OCTOBER 20, 2012

¶12

P.C:

¶13

Leave to amend. Amendment to be
carried out forthwith.

¶14

sjs

¶15

BAG-1342.2012

¶16

2.These are two applications for bail by
accused Nos.14 and 17 in a MCOC Special Case
pending before the learned Special Judge for
trial of MCOC Cases at Nashik. I have gone
through the entire charge-sheet with the help
of both the learned counsel for the applicants
as well as the learned APP. The learned APP
opposes the applications on the ground that the
applicants are members of gang of accused No.1
Papya and there are previous charge-sheets
against the applicants along with the said
Papya. The learned counsel for the applicants
submit that the applicants' involvement in the
offences along with Papya cannot be
determinative of the question whether they
should be admitted to bail in this case or not.
The learned counsel submits that applicant
Mubarak @ Laddya Khwaja Shaikh, who is the
brother of Papya, was simply alleged to have
provided some refreshments on a motorcycle to
Papya and others at the time when Papya and
others were brutally beating up the two
victims. The learned counsel submits that even
according to the allegations made, Mubarak had
no role to play in the beating or abduction of
the persons concerned and had nothing to do
with the entire incident. As far as applicant
Dattatray Baburao Karpe is concerned, he is

Page 2 of 4

sjs

BAG-1342.2012

alleged to have hired for Papya a Scorpio Jeep on hire charges of 1,000/- per day. The applicant Karpe was also not actually involved in the abduction or killing of the victims. The learned APP submits that though this is the only role attributed to the applicants, considering the complicity of the applicants in previous crimes with Papya they may be denied bail as they have been charge-sheeted for offences under the MCOC Act. She submitted that possibility of the applicant involving themselves in similar crimes cannot be ruled out. Therefore, according to her, there is no case for grant of bail to the applicants.`

¶21

3.I have carefully considered the
contentions. First, the only role attributed to
the two applicants is peripheral - one of them
having provided some refreshments on a
motorcycle and the other having hired a vehicle
for accused No.1 Papya. Their actual
involvement in this crime is not indicated in
the bulky charge-sheet filed. The learned trial
Judge has referred to confessional statements
of Sagar Shinde and Chingya alias Sameer. The
learned APP confirms, after consultation with
the Addl. Superintendent of Police Shri S.D.
Kadasne, who is present in the Court, that

Page 3 of 4

sjs

BAG-1342.2012

there is no confessional statement of Sagar
Shinde recorded. Considering all this, though
the learned APP has an objection to the
applicants being admitted to bail, no useful
purpose would be served in detaining them in
prison pending the trial which may take years.

¶26

4. In view of the above, both the applicants be released on bail in C.R. No.113 of 2011 of Shirdi Police Station on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of 1,00,000/each with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to 1,00,000/- per applicant on the condition that they shall stay in Nashik City and shall report at the Bhadrakali Police Station every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. till the trial is over.

¶27

5.The applications accordingly stand
disposed of.

¶28

Page 4 of 4

Mubarak @ Papya Khwaja Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubarak @ Papya Khwaja Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manishkumar Agarwal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amol Alias Pappu Bhikaji Sonwane and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Pandurang Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatray Baburao Karpe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Arun Khopde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Bhanudas Khopde Vs the State of Maharashtra