Single judge of Bombay High Court rejected bail application of accused tried under IPC, Arms Act, and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. Bail denied due to sufficient material from accused's confession showing active participation in planning robbery.
Application for bail rejected and custody of applicant maintained as bail not 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.
: 1 : 22-ba-75-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 75 OF 2021
Karshid Ramchandra Dhone .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
Mr. Yuvaraj S. Gharal for Applicant. Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for State/Respondent.
_____ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 09th JUNE, 2021 (Through Video Conferencing)
P.C. :
Gokhale
1 of 5
: 2 : 22-ba-75-21.odt
lodged on 25/01/2019 by one Shrirang Poojari. He has stated that, he was having a jewellery shop, dealing in silver ornaments. He was looking after this business with his father and uncle. That shop is situated in village Kardaga by name Balumama Jewellers. As usual practice, they open their shop at 9:00a.m. and close it at 7:00p.m. On 25/01/2019 they attended to their business as usual and at 7:00p.m. the informant and his father Dattatraya started to go to their house at Hupri. They were travelling on a motorcycle driven by informant’s father Dattatraya. They were having Rs.7000/- and three tola of gold in a bag. When they reached at the place around 5km. away from where they had started, they were intercepted by another two wheeler. There were two unknown persons on that two wheeler. They forcibly tried to take away that bag. When the informant and his father resisted, one of the unknown persons fired at the informant’s father. The bullet hit him on the abdomen. Then assailants removed wrist watch and silver ring from the hands of informant’s father. The informant raised shouts, therefore those assailants went away on their two wheeler. The F.I.R. mentions description of those persons. The
2 of 5
: 3 : 22-ba-75-21.odt
F.I.R. was supported by the statement of Dattatraya Poojari recorded during the investigation. When he was in the hospital he had also given description of the assailants. The investigation was carried out and during the investigation both of them identified accused Vishal Rupnur and Bhartesh Aswale as the persons who had tried to rob them. During investigation it was revealed that the offence was committed by an organized crime syndicate and, therefore, provisions of MCOC Act were applied.
3 of 5
: 4 : 22-ba-75-21.odt
meaning of MCOC Act, so far as, present applicant is concerned. He submitted that, there is no sanction under section 23(2) of the MCOC Act.
4 of 5
: 5 : 22-ba-75-21.odt
informant and Dattatrya used to close their shop between 6:30p.m. to 7:00p.m. and they used to carry ornaments in a bag. They used to travel on motorcycle. He has clearly stated that, he had passed on this information to the main accused Vishal Rupnur on 20/01/2019 telephonically. After that, Vishal, accused Nikhil, Maruti and Bhartesh Aswale had met this accused/applicant and they had decided to commit robbery on the road. At that time the applicant felt apprehensive but Vishal had threatened him. After that, this particular incident had taken place on 25/01/2019. Thus, this statement clearly shows that the main incident would not have taken place without active participation of the applicant in planning to commit this offence. In this view of the matter, at this stage, there is sufficient material against the applicant. Therefore, it is not possible to record the satisfaction that the applicant has not committed any offence under the MCOC Act. Consequently, bail cannot be granted to the present applicant in this case.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a case involving robbery, weapons offense, and organized crime syndicate under MCOC Act.
Whether the applicant's confession recorded under section 18 of MCOC Act is sufficient to establish his participation in the planning of the robbery.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Karshid Ramchandra Dhone
The State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
