IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, MCOCA FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.996/2021
*******************************************************************
Shiva Rajesh Varma
….Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(attached to Govandi Police station)
….Prosecution
=====================================
SPP Mr. S. E. Soshte for the State.
Advocate Mr. Shatalwar a/w Anil Bansode for Applicant.
=====================================
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI. Dinesh E. KOTHALIKAR (C.R.NO.25)
DATED : 18th DECEMBER 2021.
======================================
(DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT)
ORAL ORDER
1.
2.

Read application and say. Heard.
This is a successive bail application under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.Code.
3.

It is undisputed that the previous bail application submitted by
the applicant has already been rejected by this Court, vide order dated
27/09/2021 passed in B.A. No.776/2021.
4.

The learned advocate for the applicant has made three fold
submissions i.e.
i) The report was lodged against an unknown person.
ii) That applicant has not been identified by the victim at the time of
test identification parade.

: 2 :
iii) That the applicant was not connected with the previous
chargesheets, which are filed against accused No.1 the gang leader.
5.

The learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vinayak Gopalsa
Satpute V/s State of Maharashtra in Criminal Bail application
No.239/2021 decided on 11/10/2021 to submit that the provision of
MCOC Act is not attracted. In this regard I would like to reference to the
observation made by this court, while deciding previous bail application
in para No.8 and 9 of the order, this Court has categorically dealt with
said issue and turned down the submission sought to be made. In this
background the applicant can not be allowed to re-agitate said issue
before this Court. Therefore, I do not find merit in the same.
6.

It is undisputed that the report was lodged against unknown
person and that during the investigation at the time of test identification
parade, the informant could not identify the applicant. In this regard
learned SPP Mr. Soshte has submitted that thought the applicant has not
been identified by the informant, however this Court has considered
other material, which was available against the applicant to find out
prima facie involvement of the applicant in the present crime and
concluded that there is prima facie material available on record against
the applicant showing his involvement in the present crime and
accordingly the application was rejected. Therefore he would claim that
mere fact that the informant could not identify the applicant will not be
sufficient to conclude that the applicant is not guilty. I find merit in the
submission advanced by the learned SPP.
7.

The learned advocate for the applicant has vehemently
: 3 :
submitted that the prosecution is trying to rely upon the statement of coaccused for implicating present applicant in the crime, which is
impermissible. Therefore it is prayed to grant bail.
8.

It is to be noted here that the law is stated that while deciding the
bail application, the court is not required to see admissibility of the
material collected during investigation. Therefore I do not find
substance in the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the
applicant.
9.

Be that as it may, at the cost of repetition I would say that the
material available on record can not be said to be sufficient to conclude
that the accused is not guilty of the offence under the MCOC Act, which
is the prime requirement for deciding the bail application.
10.

Considering the aforesaid pros and cons of the matter, I hold
that the application sans merit is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I pass
following order;
ORDER
1. Bail Application No. 996 /2021 is hereby dismissed.
2. Record and proceeding be kept with Special Case No.1511/21.

Date : 18.12.2021.

(Dinesh E. Kothalikar)
Special Judge,MCOCA
City Civil & Sessions Court,
For Greater Bombay
: 4 :
“ CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
: 20.12.2021 AT 5.32 pm
: Mrs.Prajakta K. More.

NAME OF THE JUDGE
HHJ SHRI.D.E.KOTHALIKAR
(C.R.No.25)
Date of Pronouncement of Order
18.12.2021
Order signed by the P.O. On
18.12.2021
Order uploaded on
20.12.2021