1
BA725/2020 MCOC C.356/19
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER THE
MCOC ACT FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 725 OF 2020
IN
MCOC SPECIAL CASE No. 356 of 2020
Akshay Shiva Mini @ Patil
… Applicant/Accd.

V/s
1.The State of Maharashtra
(Through Asstt.Commissioner of Police
Dindoshi Division Aarey Pl.Stn.
C.R. No.130/19)
2. Ranjeet Kumar Viren
(Respondent No.2 is original Complainant)
… Respondents
Appearances: Ld. Adv. Ms. Saroj Shinde for the applicant
Ld. SP.P. Mr. Solkar for the State.
Coram : Ashutosh N. Karmarkar,
Special Judge (Court Room No.54)
Date : 17th July, 2020
ORDER
This is an application for bail under Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C.
and under Sec. 21(4) of the MCOC Act.
2.

This application is filed on the ground of innocence.

Secondly, no offence under Sec.3 (1)(ii), 3 (2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act or
under Sec. 307, 387, 324, 323, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506-II of
IPC are made out.

There are cross complaints regarding the alleged
incident. Some of the accused were arrested on 08.07.2019, but the
provisions of MCOC Act were invoked on 23.09.2019.

I.O. has not
established existence of Organize Crime Syndicate. There is no material
to show the conspiracy. Charge-sheet is filed. Further custody of the
applicant is not necessary. The applicant is resident of Mumbai. The
2
BA725/2020 MCOC C.356/19
provisions of Sec. 21(4) of the MCOC Act, are not applicable.

The
applicant is suffering from Asthama and requires checkup.
3.

The prosecution has objected the application by fling reply
Exh.2. The informant is engaged in business of preparing set for films
and TV serials. There are also some other contractors in the film-city
for the said job. It is alleged that, the co-accused Shiva formed a gang.
He used to give threats to other contractors for leaving their job. The
said co-accused also involved in the crime of extortion for allowing their
contractors to continue their job of preparing set. The informant has
alleged that the co-accused Shiva and his associates including this
applicant had been to the spot where the informant was asked to leave
the job or to pay the amount if he wants to continue his job. At that
time, the applicant and co-accused have assaulted the informant and
witnesses with the help of iron rod and by fist blows. The prosecution
has also contended that several offences are registered against the coaccused Shiva who is the main person of the group and the punishment
to those offences is three years or more. According to the prosecution,
the Court has also taken cognizance of those offences. According to the
prosecution, this applicant is also member of the group/gang of the coaccused Shiva and they are involved in Organized Crime.

Different
offences are also registered against the present applicant in which the
punishment is of imprisonment of three years or more. The applicant
and co-accused have committed the offence for their illegal gain.
Necessary sanction under sec. 23 (2) of the MCOC Act, before filing
chargesheet was also obtained. The present applicant was absconding.
He was arrested on 06.12.2019.

The identification parade of this
applicant was also conducted and the witnesses have identified the
present applicant. According to the prosecution, name of this applicant
3
BA725/2020 MCOC C.356/19
was stated by the witnesses in their statements. The witnesses have
also identified this applicant during T.I.Parade.

The witnesses were
assaulted with intention to cause death due to which Sec. 307 of the
IPC was levelled.

The applicant and co-accused have illegally
demanded money from the informant for continuing job.

So, the
offence of extortion under Sec. 387 of the IPC was levelled. Since, the
applicant and co-accused have involved in Organized Crime under Sec.3
(1)(ii), 3 (2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act, are attracted.
4.

I have heard both the sides.

5.

The applicant has filed his written arguments as per the
contents in the application. I have perused written arguments of the
prosecution.

According to the prosecution, the applicant is having
criminal background and its details are also given. Now, the applicant
and co-accused are trying to pressurize the witnesses.

Ld.SPP has
submitted that the affidavits of witnesses itself shows that act of
pressurizing them is going on. Police have also collected mobile/CDR in
respect of this applicant, which shown his presence at the spot.
6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant has submitted that, none of
the witnesses have identified the present applicant and the role of the
applicant is also not given. It is alleged that, this applicant has used
metal rod in this crime. The report of forensic lab in respect of that
weapon is not filed.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant has mainly
submitted that, the informant and the witnesses have filed their
affidavits in which they have stated that the applicant is not involved. It
is submitted that, there is no need of further detention since, the
charge-sheet is filed.

According to Ld.SPP, there are eye witnesses.

4
BA725/2020 MCOC C.356/19
There is also evidence in the form of CDR/mobile record, which shows
the presence of the applicant at the spot. According to him, as per Sec.
21 (5) of the MCOC Act, bail cannot be granted when there are criminal
antecedents against the applicant.
7.

Since, the applicant is charged with the offence under
MCOC Act, then wile dealing with the application for grant of bail the
relevant provisions of sec.21(4) of the MCOC Act, alongwith the
provisions of sec.439 of the Cr.P.C., are required to be considered. In
view of the provisions of Sec.21(4) of the MCOC Act, there has to be
satisfaction of the Court that, there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Recitals of the report revealed that the co-accused Shiva
has formed a gang and used to give threats to other contractors in the
film-city who takes the contract for preparing set for films and serials.
He is also allegedly involved in threating the contractors on their failure
to pay the amount illegally. It is alleged in the report that the coaccused Shiva alongwith nine associates had been to the spot where the
job of informant was going on and has illegally demanded the amount.
They have allegedly assaulted the informant and co-accused with the
help of weapon iron rod. The details are also given about involvement
of each member of that gang. The statement of injured witnesses also
show the presence of the present applicant along-with main accused
Shiva Shetty and others at the spot. Another witnesses have also stated
about the actual role of the assault of the applicant with the help of iron
rod. The medical certificate of two witnesses are also on record. One
witness sustained head injury. Three iron rods were seized from the
spot of incident, one of the rod was having blood stains.

The
5
BA725/2020 MCOC C.356/19
supplementary statement of the witness also shows that during
T.I.Parade, this applicant was identified. His statement also shows that
this applicant was much aggressive during the alleged incident. There
is also material to show that the applicant is involved in other crime.
The sanction is also accorded under Sec. 23(2) of the MCOC Act, by the
Commissioner of Police. It also shows that the co-accused Shiva is the
leader of the Organized Crime Syndicate indulging in continuous
unlawful activities. It also appears that the cognizance is taken against
co-accused Shiva in a charge-sheet against him for which punishment is
three years or more. The details of the offence, registered against the
applicant who is the member of a gang of co-accused Shiva is made
available in the reply of the prosecution. It cannot be said that, on the
basis of the material that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
the applicant is not guilty of the offences levelled against him. The
material on record shows involvement even as a member of unlawful
assembly at the relevant time.
8.

The applicant has submitted that the informant and
witnesses have filed their affidavits in which they have stated that the
co-accused and the applicant have never misbehaved in film-city and
that the applicant and co-accused are falsely implicated.

These
affidavits are before Notary dated 07.12.2019 and 08.12.2019, though
the alleged incident is of 08.07.2019. It cannot be said that there is no
substance in the submission of SPP that the filing of this affidavit itself
shows that though the applicant and co-accused are in custody, they are
trying to pressurize the witnesses.

Considering these facts, there is
every possibility of tampering the evidence and pressurizing the
witnesses in case of the release of the applicant on bail. The applicant
is also having criminal antecedent.

This applicant is arrested from
6
BA725/2020 MCOC C.356/19
Nasik District, so there is possibility that, he may indulge in similar type
of offence. Accordingly, I proceed to pass order in following terms.
ORDER
Bail Application No. 725 of 2020 is rejected and disposed off
accordingly.

( Ashutosh N. Karmarkar )
Spl. Judge,
under the N.D.P.S. Act,
Gr.Mumbai
Date: 17.07.2020
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
: 17.07.2020
: 20.07.2020
: 20.07.2020
7
BA725/2020 MCOC C.356/19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE & TIME
: 20.07.2020
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
:
12.30 P.M.

S.S.BATHE
Name of Judge (with Court Room No.)

Shri A.N. KARMARKAR
(C.R.No.54)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT /ORDER
17.07.2020
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on
20.07.2020
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded on
20.07.2020