Vijay @ Raju Chandrakant Mahadik v. the State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
In a criminal bail application under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected the prayer for bail. The judge distinguished the applicant from co-accused granted bail, noting the applicant was attributed the distinct role of an actual assailant with recovery evidence.
What did the court decide?
Criminal Bail Application No.823 of 2017 is rejected and the application is disposed of.
What the court decided
1 of 10 BA.823.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.823 OF 2017 IN M.C.O.C. SPECIAL CASE NO.1 OF 2013 @ 9 OF 2014
Vijay @ Raju Chandrakant Mahadik, Age 36 years, R/o.Kamat Ghar, Ganesh Nagar, next to Public Toilet, Bhiwandi, Dist.Thane (Presently at Thane Central Jail)
Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra through Kopri Police Station, Vide C.R.No.I-84 of 2012 Respondent
Mr.Vinod Kashid for applicant. Mr.M.G.Patil, APP, for Respondent-State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 1st August 2017
PC :
- The applicant was arrested on 30th June 2014 by Kopri Police Station in connection with CR No.I-84 of 2012 registered with the said police station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 25(I-B) (A), 27(2) of Arms Act and Sections 37(1) and 135 of Bombay Police Act. The provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (`MCOC Act') were also invoked against the applicant-accused under Sections 3(1)(II), 3(2) and 3(4) of the said Act.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who is an actual assailant under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act despite contradictions in witness statements and pending other cases.
Whether the bar on bail under Section 21(4) and Section 21(5) of the MCOC Act applies to an accused found to be an active participant in the assault.
Whether the embarrassment incidents and recovery of weapons make the applicant's entitlement to bail distinguishable from other accused granted bail in related cases.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Vijay @ Raju Chandrakant Mahadik
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
Coram
Prakash D. Naik
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court