Ravindra @ Paplya Ram Kale v. The State Of Maharashtra

Shambhavi N. Shivgan IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Shambhavi N.

Shivgan Date: 2021.03.09 14:42:17 +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Bail Application No. 3525 OF 2019 Ravindra @ Paplya Ram Kale .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ***** Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/by Mr. Shivaji A. Masal, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for State/ Respondent.

Mr. Dattatray Laxman Tandale, A.S.I., Mangalvedha Police Station, Solapur.

***** CORAM :

SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

DATE : 8 th MARCH, 2021.

PER COURT :

1.

Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with the Crime No. 139 / 2018 registered with Mangalvedha Police 1/9

Station, Solapur, under Sections 395, 308, 353, 115, 189, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short), under Section 4 r/w 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 9 and 15 of Environment Protection Act, under Sections 3(1)/181, 130/177 of Motor Vehical Act and Sections 3(1) (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).

2.

Briefy stated prosecution case is that Upon receiving a information, that one Ravindra @ Paplya Ram Kale (applicant) and his associates, were illegally excavating sand from the river bed of Bhima, at Village Tandur, Police Constable Sudhakar Lamjane and staf members reached the place, at around 04:30 am., where illegal excavation of the sand was ongoing. Two persons loading the sand in truck trolley, were detained on the spot and the charge of trolley loaded with the 2/9

sand was taken over by the raiding party. While taking the trolley away, mob of 10 to 12 persons by exerting force, took back the charge of trolley and fed the spot, by threatening the members of the raiding party. It is alleged that two amongst the mob, one unknown person instigated Sujit to waive the weapon at raiding party and run over the trolley on them. Thus alleged, that the mob had forcibly took away the trolley loaded with the sand and fed the spot. Two persons, who were detained on the spot, when enquired with, disclosed the name of the applicant and other nine persons. These two persons had also disclosed that, the trolley was owned by one Prithviraj Bhosle. The value of sand illegally excavated was around Rs. 2 Lacs. Whereupon Police Constable Suresh Lamjane, lodged the complaint on 23 rd April, 2018. whereafter the crime no. 139/2018 (subject crime) was registered again thirteen accused persons. 3/9

3.

Pending investigation on 1 st May, 2018, after seeking prior approval, applicant - accused was prosecuted for committing ofence of Organised Crime.

4.

The applicant was arrested on 6 th August, 2018. The investigation is over and the charge-sheet has been fled. 5.

Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Applicant, submits that while granting prior approval on 1 st May, 2018, the three ofences were considered. However, out of it, qua crime no. 84/2018, the charge-sheet was fled on 4 th May, 2018 i.e. after granting prior approval. State admits this fact, inasmuch as in the reply, it is stated that charge-sheet in crime no. 84/2018 was fled on 4 th May, 2018. As such, as on the date of granting prior approval neither two charge-sheets in respect of the specifed, ofences, 4/9

were fled nor its cognizance was taken and therefore submission of Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for Applicant requires consideration.

6.

It may be stated that in the reply, the prosecution has placed on record crime chart inter-alia disclosing nine ofences registered against the applicant. Still, while granting approval, only three ofences considered and this anomaly has not been clarifed. Be that as it may, one of the requirements for applying the MCOCA is that on the date of the ofence, submission of charge-sheet and cognizance of ofence of specifed nature in more than one case within the preceding period of ten year, is a mandatory, which is apparently lacking in this case. 7.

In so far as the substantive ofence i.e. crime no. 138/2018 registered against the applicant in crime no. 139/2018 is 5/9

concerned, it may be stated the only, evidence sought to be pressed by the prosecution is, statement of two co-accused, who were arrested on the spot, while loading excavated sand in the trolley. Beyond this, there is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution, to show applicant's complicity in the subject crime.

8.

Though it is prosecution case that while the raiding party was taking away the sand loaded trolley, 10 to 15 persons caused, fear and annoyance and intimidated police party, but to say, Test Identifcation Parade has not been held. In the circumstances, the prosecution is left with no evidence, other than the statement of co-accused, who have been released on bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 381/2020 and 2107/2019.

6/9

9.

Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Applicant has invited my attention to order passed by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 949/2019 vide which, the co-accused Sanjay Bhosale has been released on bail. The role attributed to Sanjay Bhosale is not diferent than the role, attributed to applicant.

10. Therefore, in consideration of the facts and for the reasons stated above, conditions imposed under Section 21(4) of the MCOCA would not deter me, from releasing the applicant on bail. As a result, application is allowed on the following conditions.

O R D E R

(i) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in Crime No. 139 / 2018 registered with Mangalvedha Police Station, Pune on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 7/9

50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount; (ii) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Ofcer twice a month i.e. Second and Fourth Monday of each month commencing from March, 2021 between 11:00 am. to 01:00 pm. till the charge is framed;

(iii) The applicant shall furnish his residential address as well as permanent address and contact details to the investigating ofcer within a week;

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to infuence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

11. Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 8/9

12. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove be construed as expression of opinion only for the purpose of granting bail and the same shall not in any way infuence the trial in other proceedings.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.) 9/9