Allowed

Akshay Jalindar Hargude v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Feb 2021BA/297/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay released the applicant on bail in connection with criminal charges including attempt to murder and organized crime. The court found reasonable grounds to believe the applicant did not commit offences under the MCOC Act due to his lesser role and lack of antecedents, denying the State's application to deny bail under Section 21(4).

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Akshay Jalindar Hargude Vs the State of Maharashtra — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

 1.BA-297-20.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.297 OF 2020

¶5

Akshay Jalindar Hargude.... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate i/b. Karma Vivan, for the
Applicant.

¶7

Mrs. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:24th FEBRUARY, 2021

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1.The Applicant is seeking his release on bail in

¶11

connection with C.R.No.44/2019 registered at Bhuinj police

¶12

station, District–Satara on 25.3.2019 under Sections 307, 326,

¶13

143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections

¶14

3, 5 & 25 of the Indian Arms Act and under Section 37 read

¶15

with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Subsequently,

¶16

1 of 11

¶17

Deshmane(PS)

¶18

 : 2 : 1.BA-297-20.odt

¶19

Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the MCOC Act’) were
applied. The Applicant was arrested on 30.3.2019 and since
then he is in custody. The investigation is over and the
charge-sheet is filed.

¶20

2.Initially. the FIR was registered and investigation

¶21

was carried out for the offences punishable under the Indian
Penal Code and other offences. On 5.5.2019, the approval
under Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act was granted and
thereafter the investigation was carried out under the
provisions of the MCOC Act. After conclusion of the
investigation, the approval under Section 23(2) of the MCOC
Act to prosecute the accused, under the provisions of the
MCOC Act was accorded on 23.9.2019.

¶22

3. Heard Shri Aabad Ponda, l earned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and Smt. A.A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.

¶23

4.The prosecution case, which is substantially
mentioned in the FIR itself, is as follows.

¶24

2 of 11

¶25

 : 3 : 1.BA-297-20.odt

¶26

5.The FIR was lodged by one Pandurang Pawar. He

¶27

has stated that he was working with Anewadi Toll Plaza. On
25.3.2019, he was in-charge of the toll plaza on Satara-Pune
Highway within the limits of Virmade village. He was
accompanied by his co-employees Vishal Raje, Ranjeet Kasabe,
Sumit Pawar, Kiran Sonawane, Dattatraya Kale, Vikas Sawant
etc.. At about 1:00 a.m. in the night, one Swift car bearing
No.MH-12-NJ-302 passed through the toll plaza without
paying the toll. The car was stopped a little ahead of the toll
plaza. The driver was requested to pay the toll. However, he
refused. He told the informant that they were the Partners of
Khed-Shivapur Toll Plaza and, therefore, they will not pay the
toll. The informant insisted that they must pay the toll.
Thereafter the driver and others started quarreling with the
informant and started abusing them. In the meantime, they
contacted somebody telephonically. Within 5 to 10 minutes,
two Fortuner cars came there. From those cars, 4 to 5 persons
got down. They started approaching the informant. The
informant was knowing one of them as Rohidas @ Bapu

¶28

3 of 11

¶29

 : 4 : 1.BA-297-20.odt

¶30

Chorghe. The passengers of Swift car told Bapu Chorghe that
they were assaulted. Bapu Chorghe, in turn, took out a pistol
and fired in the direction of the informant. The informant
started to run away. One more person accompanying Bapu
Chorghe also fired at him. In the meantime, the informant’s
companion Vishal Raje fell down. One of the passengers of
Swift car who had sat next to the driver assaulted him with a
concrete block. The informant’s other companion Vikas
Shinde tried to remove his pistol from hands of Bapu
Chorghe. After that, Bapu Chorghe and others left the place
in their vehicles. On this basis, the FIR was lodged.

¶31

6.As mentioned earlier, subsequently the provisions
of MCOC Act were invoked. In the meantime, the Applicant
was already arrested on 30.3.2019. It was mentioned in the
approval under Section 23 of the MCOC Act that the main
accused Bapu Chorghe had formed an organized crime
syndicate and other accused were the members of such
syndicate. The syndicate was committing many offences. The
approval gives list of antecedents against all the accused.

¶32

4 of 11

¶33

 : 5 : 1.BA-297-20.odt

¶34

Significantly, there is not a single offence registered against
the present Applicant except the present case. It was alleged
that this syndicate was committing the offences for pecuniary
and other advantages.

¶35

7.Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant
submitted that it was a small incident and though the accused
had two pistols, nobody from the informant’s group has
suffered any fire-arm injury. The only injured was Vikas
Shinde, but, that was caused by co-passenger of the present
Applicant in Swift car. The Applicant had not taken part in
the actual assault. There are no allegations that he has caused
any injury. He submitted that the allegations against the
present Applicant at the highest are that he refused to pay the
toll and started quarreling with the informant and his group.
Beyond that there is no material against him. He submitted
that the prosecution evidence does not show that the
applicant was ever in touch with the gang leader Bapu
Chorghe. He submitted that for this small incident and his
presence at the spot at the time of such incident, the Applicant

¶36

5 of 11

¶37

 : 6 : 1.BA-297-20.odt

¶38

has spent for about two years in custody. No offence under
the MCOC Act is made out against the present Applicant and,
therefore, he deserves the order of release on bail.

¶39

8.Learned A.P.P. opposed this application. The
investigating officer has filed his affidavit dated 2.11.2020
pointing out the nature of evidence against the present
Applicant.

¶40

9.The affidavit mentions that the evidence revealed
that the gang leader Rohidas @ Bapu Chorghe and co-accused
Sopan Chorghe wanted one shift to run Khed-Sivapur Toll
Plaza. But, aforementioned Vikas Shinde had refused to
accept their demand and, therefore, there was enmity
between Rohidas Chorghe and Vikas Shinde. According to the
prosecution, this was the cause of incident. The affidavit goes
on to mention the offences registered against Rohidas
Chorghe.

¶41

10.As far as the present Applicant is concerned, the
material against him is that the Swift car which was involved

¶42

6 of 11

¶43

 : 7 : 1.BA-297-20.odt

¶44

in the offence was intercepted and at that time the Applicant
was in the car. Thereafter the car was seized by the
investigating agency. The CCTV footage shows presence of
the present Applicant at the scene of the offence. He was
identified by the witnesses Vishal Raje, Kiran Sonawane and
Vikas Sawant in the test identification parade.

¶45

11.There is a Call Data Record [CDR] showing that
the Applicant was in touch with the accused Yuvraj Wabale,
Vaibhav Sabale and Sachin Dhore on many occasions. Co-
accused Sachin Dhore, in turn, was in contact with the gang
leader. Therefore, the prosecution case was that the Applicant
was working for the gang leader.

¶46

12.I have considered all these submissions. With the
assistance of learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and
learned A.P.P. for the State, I have perused the charge-sheet.

¶47

13.In this context, the statements of the eye witnesses
Vishal Raje, Vikas Sawant and Kiran Sonawane are important
because they have identified the Applicant in the

¶48

7 of 11

¶49

 : 8 : 1.BA-297-20.odt

¶50

identification parade. The presence of the Applicant at the
scene of offence, at the time of occurrence, is not seriously
disputed even by the Applicant. Therefore, his role is required
to be examined. All these three eye witnesses have given
identical statements on 25.3.2019. They have stated that at
the time of incident the aforementioned Swift car went ahead
without paying toll. When the car was stopped, the driver
was asked to pay the toll. He had refused. He had told that
they were the Partners of Khed-Shivapur Toll Plaza. Then
there was quarrel and the Applicant abused. It is their case
that after that somebody called the gang leader telephonically.
Others came in two different vehicles and then there was
further incident.

¶51

14.The eye witness Vishal Raje fell down while
running away. At that time, the person who was sitting next
to the driver in the Swift car picked up a concrete block and
assaulted him. Vishal Raje has suffered displaced fracture of
mandible on the right side. However, this injury is not
attributed to the present Applicant. It was specifically

¶52

8 of 11

¶53

 : 9 : 1.BA-297-20.odt

¶54

attributed to the person who was sitting next to the driver.
The prosecution case is that the Applicant was driving the
Swift car. The incident of assault on Vishal Raje with the
concrete block was not per-meditated and, therefore, it is
difficult to attribute common intention to the present
Applicant for the injuries caused to the witness Vishal Raje.
Beyond these allegations, there are no allegations that the
Applicant had taken any part in the entire incident.

¶55

15.There are no antecedents against the present
Applicant and, therefore, there is no previous offence
committed by him for and on behalf of either Rohidas @ Bapu
Chorghe the gang leader or his crime syndicate. At the
highest the allegations against the Applicant are that he had
refused to pay the toll and had started quarreling.
Significantly, there is nothing to show that the Applicant
himself had called Rohidas Chorghe or anybody else and had
asked the others to come at the spot to assault the informant
and his group. The prosecution case in that respect is not
against the present Applicant.

¶56

9 of 11

¶57

 : 10 : 1.BA-297-20.odt

¶58

16.The allegations that he was telephonically in

¶59

touch with other co-accused during past three months before
the incident does not indicate that he was working for that
particular syndicate. There is no communication between the
Applicant and the gang leader Rohidas @ Bapu Chorghe.

¶60

17.In this view of the matter, there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the Applicant has not committed any
offence under the MCOC Act. The Applicant does not have
any criminal antecedents. Therefore, there are reasons to
believe that he is not likely to commit similar offences in
future while on bail. In this view of the matter, the bar of
Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act will not attract against him for
denial of bail to him.

¶61

18.Considering the lesser role played by the Applicant

¶62

and taking into account the long period of detention which he
has already undergone as an under-trial prisoner, the
Applicant deserves to be released on bail. Hence, the
following order :

¶63

10 of 11

¶64

 : 11 : 1.BA-297-20.odt

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i)In connection with C.R.No.44/2019 registered at
Bhuinj police station, District–Satara, the Applicant is
directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount.

¶67

(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station every fortnight for a period of one year from today and he shall attend the trial on every date.

¶68

(iii) The Applicant shall not try to tamper with the

¶69

Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane

¶70

Digitally signed by Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane Date: 2021.02.26 14:52:46 +0530

¶71

evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶72

(iv) The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶73

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶74

Deshmane (PS)

¶75

11 of 11

Akshay Jalindar Hargude v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Jalindar Hargude 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishant S/O Waman Bhange Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ketan Mahendrakumar Bhalekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manohar Baburao Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Basu @ Basappa Sunkappa Annareddy Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahendra Pundalik Wankhede Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rita @ Magdling Denzil Desoza Vs the State of Maharashtra