MHCC020161382022
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 01.12.2022
: 01.12.2022
: 26.12.2022
:Y M D
00: 00: 25
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
AT CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, GR.BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.757 OF 2022
IN
MCOC REMAND APPLICATION NO.1006 OF 2022
***************************************************************
Firoz Fazal Hussain Shaikh
Age : 47 years, Occ: Business
Add: Aн1, Flat No.601,602,
Green Park, Shanti Park, Opp. Jangid Tower,
Mira Road (East), MiraнBhyandar, Thane
Mira Road Ц 401 107.
(Currently lodged at Mumbai Central Prison)
Е Accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(through DCB CID AE Cell
vide C.R. No.150/2022)
Е Prosecution
***********************************************************
Advocate Mr. Prakash Shetty along with Mr. Tarun Sharma for
accused/applicant.
CPP Mr. Jaisingh Desai for the Prosecution.
*************************************************************
CORAM : THE SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI. RAJESH J. KATARIYA, (C.R.NO.25)
DATED : 26th DECEMBER, 2022.
**************************************************************
BA 757/2022
:2:
R.A. No.1006/2022
(DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT)
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Prakash Shetty along with Mr. Tarun
Sharma for accused/applicant and learned SPP Mr. Jaisingh Desai for
prosecution.

2.

Present application is filed by the applicant/accused for
grant of bail in regard to offence registered at DCB CID vide C.R.
No.150/22. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of report
dated 26/09/2022, lodged by the informant initially, C.R. No.540/2022
for the offences u/s 386, 506 (2), 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC came to be
registered at Varsova Police station against the coнaccused Riyaz Bhati
and Salim Qureshi. It is alleged that informant came in contact with
accused Riyaz Bhati. On 19.02.2021, there was birthday party of
accused Riyaz. The informant also attended that birthday party. Riyaz
introduced informant with coнaccused Salim Fruit as relative of gangster
Chota Shakil. It was further stated to him that coнaccused Salim Fruit is
having political relations. It is contended in the FIR that informant
developed friendly relations with him, as he would get benefit of his
contacts in his business. The informant was fond of betting by playing
cards. The accused Salim also used to play cards. They both started
plying together in a club. After some days, accused Salim won the game
and demanded amount of Rs.62 Lakhs from the informant towards the
account of liability arose from the betting game by the informant. It is
alleged that accused threatened the informant and obtained his Range
Rover Car bearing No.MHн01нBYн7120. The value of Car was considered
BA 757/2022
:3:
R.A. No.1006/2022
at Rs.30 Lakhs. The informant was required to pay Rs.32 Lakhs more to
the coнaccused Salim. It is alleged that in view of threats by the coн
accused, informant paid Rs.7,50,000/н to the coнaccused. Initially, crime
was registered against accused Riyaz and Salim for the offences u/s
386, 506(2) 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC. Subsequently, prior approval as per
section 23 (1)(a) of MCOC Act came to be granted and provisions of
sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of MCOC Act came to be added in the
crime. During course of investigation present applicant and other
accused were also found involved in the commission of crime.

3.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that applicant
is falsely involved in the crime. He is arrested on 11.10.2022. The
applicant is not named in the FIR. There is nothing to show how
applicant is connected with the gang and his involvement in the alleged
conspiracy. Hence, prayed for grant of bail. He placed reliance on the
ratio laid down in the following case laws:н
(a) Mohamad Iliyas Mohamad Bilal Kapadiya Vs The State of
Gujarat [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 538], wherein it is held as under:н
УUndisputedly, the perusal of the Chart would reveal that only
one offence, i.e., FIR No. 64 of 2021 would show that it has been
committed by seven accused out of which two are the members of
the syndicate. In respect of offences at Serial Nos. 1 to 4 in the
Chart, no members of the syndicate are arrayed as accused.
We are of the prima facie view that for invoking the provisions
of the GCTOC Act,the following conditions will have to be fulfilled:
(i) that such an activity should be prohibited by law for the time
being in force;
BA 757/2022
:4:
R.A. No.1006/2022
(ii) that such an activity is a congnizable offence punishable with
imprisonment of three years or more;
(iii) that such an activity is undertaken either singly or jointly, as a
member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such
syndicate;
(iv) that in respect of such an activity more than one chargesheet
must have been filed before a competent Court; and
(v) that the charge sheet must have been filed within a preceding
period of ten years; and
(vi) that the Courts have taken cognizance of such offences.Ф
(b) Alnesh Akil Somji Vs The State of Maharashtra. [Bail
Application No.271 of 2022; decided on 25.04.2022], wherein it is
held as under:н
У13. There is no manner of doubt that the investigation is within
the province and domain of the investigating agency. However that
does not mean that the court, in almost all cases, would be bound
by the invocation of a particular section against the accused by the
prosecuting agency. This is because the label of the section or the
provision invoked would not be decisive. To hold otherwise, would
amount to placing the said right at the mercy of the investigating
agency and would indirectly result in the magistrate abdicating the
duty to enforce the right wherever necessary. Thus the court would
be required to look into the generality of the allegations made and
the material collected. In a given case where exfacie the provision is
not attracted the court may not be bound by the same. Although
there is no requirement for the investigating officer to obtain
permission from the magistrate for such addition, as held by the
Calcutta High Court in Sayantan Chatterjee(supra), the
Magistrate is not precluded from looking into the facts and the
material collected, whether the offence is ex facie made out or not.
The matter depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. For
instance, where the investigating officer invokes section 326 of IPC,
however the medical report does not ex facie show that the victim
has suffered a ‘grievous injury’, within the meaning of Section 320
of IPC. OR a case where section 409 of IPC is invoked and
admittedly the accused does not fall under any of the seven
categories mentioned in the said section namely the accused is
BA 757/2022
:5:
R.A. No.1006/2022
neither a public servant a banker etc. I would hasten to add that
where however the facts and the material collected prima facie
indicate the ingredients of a particular offence the court obviously
cannot examine or appreciate the same the same at that stage in
order to arrive at a different conclusion.Ф
4.

Per contra, vide say filed at Exh.2, learned SPP opposed the
application. It is contended in the say that the alleged crime is
committed by the crime syndicate of the gangster Chhota Shakil. The
investigation in the crime is in progress. The applicant had involvement
in the commission of crime. Hence, prayed for rejection of the bail
application.

5.

Perusal of papers of investigation, there are statements of the
witnesses specially alleging that applicant is connected with the
organized crimes syndicate of Chota Shakil. As per prosecution there is
participation of the applicant in the commission of crime. There are
specific allegations made against the applicant in the statements of
witnesses regarding his involvement. It is alleged that applicant is
benefited with the share of pecuniary benefit arose from the amount
obtained by accused persons from the informant. There is primaнfacie
case against the applicant. I have gone through case laws relied by
learned advocate for accused. With great respect to the ratio laid down
therein, same are not helpful to the applicant/accused. The offences are
serious in nature. In view of seriousness of crime and specific allegations
against the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, I
proceed to pass following order н
BA 757/2022
:6:
R.A. No.1006/2022
ORDER
Bail Application No.757 of 2022 is rejected and disposed off.

RAJESH
JAGURAM
KATARIYA
Date : 26.12.2022
Dictated on : 26.12.2022
Typed on
: 26.12.2022
Signed on : 26.12.2022
Digitally signed by
RAJESH JAGURAM
KATARIYA
Date: 2022.12.27
10:32:22 +0530
(Rajesh J. Katariya)
Special Judge, MCOCA
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay
BA 757/2022
:7:
R.A. No.1006/2022
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDERФ
UPLOAD DATE
27.12.2022
TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
10.45 am
Umesh G. Jadhav
Name of the Judge
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
Judgment/order signed by P.O on
Judgment/order uploaded on
HHJ Shri R.J.KATARIYA
(CR No.25)
26.12.2022
26.12.2022
27.12.2022