Dismissed

State of Maharashtra v. Gazi Dara Irani @ Sayyad @ Jafri

Bombay HC20 Sept 2023APEAL/905/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the order rejecting the police custody remand application. The Special Judge refused custody as MCOC approval already existed for two other crimes with similar records.

What did the court decide?

Power to police to remand respondent to judicial custody was confirmed; appeal against the order of Special Judge was dismissed.

State of Maharashtra Vs Gazi Dara Irani @ Sayyad @ Jafri — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:28092-DB

¶2

19.905.23 apeal.doc

¶3

Iresh

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 905 OF 2023

¶6

State of Maharashtra ...Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gazi Dara Irani @ Sayyad @ Jafri ...Respondent

¶9

Mr. K. V. Saste APP for the appellant-State Mr. Niranjan S. Mundargi appointed advocate for respondent

¶10

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & GAURI GODSE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 20^th SEPTEMBER 2023

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

By this appeal, the appellant-State of Maharashtra has impugned the order dated 18^th July 2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (M.C.O.C. Act), Thane below remand report dated 18^th July 2023 in CR No. 519 of 2022 registered with the Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan, by which the learned Special Judge was pleased to reject the remand application preferred by the police seeking police

¶15

1/4

¶16

19.905.23 apeal.doc

¶17

custody of the respondent.

¶18

Perused the papers. It appears that there are four cases registered as against the respondent, i.e. CR No. 21 of 2016 registered with Manpada Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under sections, 392, 506(2), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (ii) 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. (‘MCOC’Act) It appears that MCOC Act was invoked against the respondent in view of the cases registered against him prior thereto.

¶19

It appears that during the Covid period, the respondent absconded from custody, pursuant to which, CR No. 118 of 2021 was registered as against the respondent with Kongaon, Bhiwandi Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under sections, 224, 118, 269, 271 of the Indian Penal Code; section 11 of Maharashtra Covid19 Regulation Act, 2020; and sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897.

¶20

It appears that in the interregnum, the respondent committed few more offences of chain snatching, pursuant to which 3 CR’s were

¶21

2/4

¶22

19.905.23 apeal.doc

¶23

registered as against the respondent i.e. CR No. 519 of 2022 with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan for the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code. (It is in this case, that the MCOC Act has been invoked and police custody has been sought); CR No. 548 of 2022 registered with the Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan for the alleged offences punishable under sections 394, 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as provisions of the MCOC Act; and CR No. 550 of 2022 also registered with the Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan for the alleged offences punishable under sections 394, 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as provisions of the MCOC Act.

¶24

It is pertinent to note that in both CR’s i.e. CR No. 548 of 2022 and 550 of 2022, both registered with the Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan in which MCOC was invoked, the police had sought police custody, which was granted by the Court on production warrant.

¶25

3/4

¶26

19.905.23 apeal.doc

¶27

As far as CR No. 519 of 2022 in which MCOC is invoked, the police filed a remand application seeking police custody, even in the said CR which was rejected by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 18^th July 2023. The said order is at page 38 of the appeal. Learned Judge vide the said order has given reasons for refusing to grant police custody remand of the respondent. Learned Judge has noted that there are two crimes in which approval under the MCOC Act is already granted i.e. CR No. 548 of 2022 and CR No. 550 of 2022 and that the third in which the approval is granted is based on the record which was the subject matter in earlier three crimes in which approval under the MCOC was granted. Learned Judge has therefore, having regard to the nature of offences, coupled with approval in earlier two crimes, refused the police custody of the respondent and remanded the respondent to judicial custody. We find no infirmity in the said order.

¶28

Considering the aforesaid, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶29

GAURI GODSE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶30

4/4

State of Maharashtra v. Gazi Dara Irani @ Sayyad @ Jafri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra v. Gazi Dara Irani @ Sayyad @ Jafri

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

Ramu Maruti Gadivdar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Geetanjali Virupaksha Menashi Vs State of Maharashtra

Jitendrakumar Karansingh Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakesh Dattaram Mane Vs State of Maharashtra

Akash Vitthal Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra

Akshay Laxman Ingulkar Vs State of Maharashtra