← Library
Bombay High CourtBA/3204/2019allowed

Aniket Pandurang Navgire v. The State Of Maharashtra

2021-07-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prakash D. Naik9 pages

rpa 1/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.3204 OF 2019 Aniket Pandurang Navgire .. Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ......

Mr.Sachin H. Deokar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent - State. ......

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATED :

JULY 28 , 2021.

P.C. :

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is arrested on 17th December, 2018, in connection with C.R.No.424 of 2018, registered with Khadak Police Station, Pune, for the ofences punishable under Sections

307. 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short), under Section 4(25) of Arms Act and under Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date:

2021.08.03 15:59:31 +0530 and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Organised Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOC Act", for shrot).

rpa 2/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc In the First Information Report ("FIR", in short), dated 29th November, 2018, the informant has alleged that he knows Kunal Jadhav, Vipul Ingawale and Shrinath alias Tikya Shelar, who are residents of Shukrawar Peth, Pune. The sister of the complainant attends tuition classes. In the previous week, Kunal Jadhav and Vipul Ingawale had caused harassment to his sister. She had informed about it to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant told Krunal Jadhav, Vipul Ingawale and Shrinath Shelar that they should not trouble his sister. On 28th November, 2019, the complainant was returning home. He come across Vipul Ingawale, Krunal Jadhav, Shrinath @ Tikkya Shelar, Pramod Shelar, Rahul Bhargude, Akshay Jadhav and Aniket Navgire. Vipul Ingawale stopped him. He was abused. All of them assaulted him with fst blows.

Krunal Jadhav removed sickle and gave blow on the head of the complainant. Vipul Ingawale also gave blow of sickle on his head. Shrinath alias Tikya Shelar and Pramod Shelar assaulted him with bamboo stick. Akshay Jadhav and Aniket Navgire (applicant) assaulted him with fst/kick blows. All of them fled away from the place of incident. FIR was registered. Approval was granted under Section 23(1)(A) of the MCOC Act for invoking the provisions of the said Act.

rpa 3/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc January, 2019, sanction was granted under the provisions of MCOC Act vide order dated 24th May, 2019, and, Sections 3(1)(ii), 3 (2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act were invoked against the accused.

Applicant preferred an application for bail before the Special Court under MCOC Act. The said application was rejected by order dated 16th August, 2019.

Learned advocate for the applicant Mr.Deokar made following submissions:

(a) Provisions of MCOC Act are not attracted;

(b) Applicant is not member of crime syndicate;

(c) The injured had sustained simple injuries and he is out of danger;

(d) The incident occurred suddenly in spur of moment; (e) Applicant is in custody from 17th December, 2018; (f) The applicant is not involved in any other ofence with leader of the crime syndicate;

(g) The applicant had not used any weapon in the incident of assault.

rpa 4/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc Learned APP Mr.Pethe submitted that the applicant has been named in the FIR. His involvement is supported by evidence. Provisions of MCOC Act are invoked against the applicant. He is member of crime syndicate. The complainant was assaulted by all the accused. There are restrictions in granting bail to the accused under the MCOC Act. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty1. The applicant is involved in one more case registered with Khadak police station vide C.R.No.76 of 2019, for the ofence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. Co-accused Tikya Shelar is involved in the said case. All the accused have assaulted the complainant. Two of them were armed with sickle.

He relied upon the contents of the afidavit-in-reply feld by the Assistant Commissioner of Police Vihrambag Division, Pune, opposing the application for bail. During investigation, it is revealed that there is suficient evidence to prove continuous unlawful activities of the organised crime syndicate headed by accused Shrinath @ Tikya Ashok Shelar and more than one charge-sheet has been fled against the gang leader viz. R.C.C.No.2442 of 2017, R.C.C.No.2383 of 2018, R.C.C.No.2326 of 2018, R.C.C.No.5905 of 2017 and R.C.C.No.247 of 2018.

(2021) 10 SCC 561

rpa 5/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc The incident had occurred on 28th November, 2018. According to informant, the accused Krunal Jadhav and Vipul Ingawale had caused harassment to his sister, and, hence, the informant had told them not to trouble her. The incident of 28th November, 2018 is not a pre planned act. Gangleader Tikya Shelar was not involved in the previous incident of harassment to complainant's sister. The complainant was returning home and at that time he was accosted by the accused. The applicant has allegedly assaulted by fst and kick blows. The complainant knows Vipul Ingawale and Shrinath Shelar. Prior approval dated 3rd January, 2019, was obtained for invoking the provisions of MCOC Act. The applicant was not armed with any weapon. There is no confession under Section 18 of the MCOC Act.

There is no incident that the applicant was associated with the crime syndicate and have indulged in the acts creating terror or violence with the crime syndicate. In the past one ofence was registered against the applicant vide C.R.No.76 of 2018 under Sections 326, 143, 147 and 149 of IPC. Summary of the said ofence forms part of the charge-sheet. Summary do not indicate name of applicant. It appears, he was not named in FIR. It is apparent that the applicant was not involved in the said complaint.

rpa 6/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc house and threats by co-accused. The sanction order indicate that, evidence collected establishes that Srinath @ Tikya Ashok Shelar and his associates infurtherance of activities of their organised crime syndicate, committed this ofence with a view to gain pecuniary beneft for themselves by threat of violence, intimidation and coercion. In the present case, there was no question of pecuniary advantage. Learned APP has relied upon the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Vishwanath Shetty (Supra). In the said decision, it was observed that while granting bail, the High Court has not satisfed the twin conditions mentioned in Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act.

While dealing with the special statue and having regard to the provisions in Sub-section 4 of Section 21, the Court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a fnding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. It would be necessary on the part of the Court is to see the culpability of the accused and his involvement in the commission of an organized crime either directly or indirectly. The Court further observed that the High Court had ignored the mandatory requirements.

rpa 7/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc the MCOC Act, would not be an impediment to grant bail to the applicant. The Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra2, it has been observed that the restrictions on the power of the Court to grant bail should not be pushed too far. If the Court, having regard to the materials brought on record, is satisfed that in all probability he may not be ultimately convicted, an order granting bail may be passed. The satisfaction of the Court, as regards his likelihood of not committing an ofence while on bail must be construed to mean an ofence under the Act and not any ofence whatsoever be it a minor or major ofence. The duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously, but, to arrive at a fnding on the basis of broad probabilities.

The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must arrive at a positive fnding that the applicant has not committed an ofence under the Act. If such a construction is placed, the Court intending to grant bail must arrive at a fnding that the applicant has not committed such an ofence. In such an event, it will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant. Such cannot be the intention of the Legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must be construed reasonably.

rpa 8/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial.

On applying test as above to the facts of this case, the applicant need not be detained further in custody, despite embargo under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act. Considering the factual aspects of the matter, bail can be granted to the applicant. :: O R D E R ::

(i) Bail Application No.3204 of 2019, is allowed; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.424 of 2018 registered with Khadak Police Station, Pune, on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one or two sureties in the like amount;

(iii) Applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on frst Saturday of the month between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m. for the period of six months, and, thereafter, once in three month on frst Saturday of the month between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m., till further orders;

rpa 9/9 3 ba 3204 2019.doc (iv) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not approach the complainant or any other witnesses;

(v) Bail Application No.3204 of 2019, stands disposed of accordingly.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)