:1:
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR GR. MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.7 OF 2014
IN
MCOC SPECIAL CASE NO. 4 OF 2014
Mohd. Raees Mohd. Salim Qureshi
Age 27 yrs, R/at : Room No.505/P/5,
P Series, Ram Mandir Road,
Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai н 102.

)
)
)
)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.
)
(At the instance of Santacruz Police Station )
.. Applicant/
Accused No.15
.. Respondent
Mrs.Anjali Awasthi, Advocate for the Applicant/Accused No.15.
Ms. Lata Chheda, Spl. P.P. for State / Respondent.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI P. R. DESHMUKH.
th
DATED: 26 December, 2014.
ORAL ORDER
This is an application for bail under section 437 of Cr.P.C. by
accused No.15 Mohd. Raees Mohd. Salim Qureshi (A15) in C.R.No.
175/2014 registered at Santacruz Police Station for offence punishable
under sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 450, 387, 307, 427 and 506(II) of
IPC, under section 4 and 25 of Arms Act and also for offence under
sections 37(1), 135 r/w. 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOC Act.
2.

While praying for bail, it is say of accused that he is falsely
implicated in the case. He has no concern with the alleged incident which
:2:
took place on 1/3/2014.

He was arrested by police on 20/4/2014
immediately after coming from Dubai. He is having passport issued from
his native place Jaipur Rajasthan. He is permanent resident of Santacruz.
He had gone to Dubai for first time. He is having visa issued by U.A.E.
There is no any case pending against him in Mumbai or any part of India.
He is only earning member of the family. He undertake to follow all terms
and conditions and will cooperate to police in event of his release on bail.
Alongwith bail application, he filed reservation ticket from Sharjah to
Mumbai dated 27/1/2014, passport and another ticket of Mumbai to
Dubai from 11/7/2013, visa of U.A.E dated 26/6/2013.
3.

On behalf of accused, it is submitted by Ld. Advocate that
when incident took place on 1/3/2014, accused is arrested on 20/4/2014.
His name is not in FIR. So far as alleged role is concerned, there is only
discovery of Rs.12,000/н from his house under section 27 of the Evidence
Act.

Accused has no knowledge about activity of other accused in
connection with alleged incident dated 1/3/2014 or conspiracy behind it.
CDR report do not show that present accused was in touch with other
accused to commit the offence. Other accused by name Ashique Iqbal
Shaikh @ Lukka is released by Hon’ble High Court as per Criminal Bail
Application No.1977/2014 by order dated 11/11/2014. On parity ground,
according to Ld. Advocate, bail may kindly be granted to this accused even
by considering role as compared to the accused to whom the bail is
granted by Hon’ble High Court.
4.

As per reply Exh.7нA of prosecution, while opposing bail
:3:
application it is contended in reply that on 1/3/2014 at about 15.45 hours,
assembly of 8 to 10 persons forcibly entered into the premises of HDIL
Company having deadly weapons like chopper, iron rod, koyta, stump,
bamboo sticks with them. They damaged site office of the complainant at
Santacruz. By means of deadly weapon they threatened security guards to
death. However, security guard by his presence of mind fired bullet from
his revolver in air and rescued himself from said assembly.
5.

In reply itself, prosecution has given detailed case of
prosecution and role of present accused in commission of said incident as a
member of unlawful assembly as per CCTV footage. So also according to
prosecution, present accused was in constant touch with accused Nos.12
and 13 as per CDR reports filed in second volume of chargesheet from
page 93 to 135. As per house search of accused amount of Rs.12,000/н is
seized which is extortion money collected by present accused from
different persons. Mobile of Samsung Company and sim card of Vodafone
Company came to be seized from accused which connects the CDR filed on
record which shows that for recovery of extortion amount, present accused
was in constant touch with other accused No.12. By giving all such details
about material available against present accused, prosecution opposed bail
application on the ground that if accused is released on bail there is
possibility of repetition of similar nature of incidents and on the say of
main accused Zulfikar Behalim (accused No.13), accused may involve in
recovery of extortion amount from different persons and also may tamper
prosecution witnesses if released on bail.

:4:
6.

Heard Ld. Adv. for applicant and SPP for State. Gone through
material available on record in chargeнsheet against present applicant as
compared to other accused persons and specifically accused Ashique to
whom bail is granted by Hon’ble High Court to appreciate ground of parity.
So far as ground of parity is concerned, it is seen from order that bail is
granted to said accused as there was only recovery of motorcycle at
instance of said accused and Hon’ble High Court observed that said
accused was not owner of motorcycle and besides recovery of motorcycle
there is no other material available against said accused in chargesheet.
He was not identified in identification parade and registration papers of
motorcycle were not found in the dicky of said motorcycle to show that
accused is owner of said motorcycle. Meaning thereby the Hon’ble High
Court granted bail to said accused considering the fact that there is no
material in chargesheet against said accused except recovery of motorcycle
from him.
7.

So far as material available against present accused in
chargesheet, as stated in reply of prosecution, I have perused the whole
chargesheet which is in three volumes. It is seen from statement of two
witnesses namely Mayur Chandrakant Rotkar (Page 145) and Mohd.
Shahid Abdul Jabbar Sayyed
(Pg 187) in volume II that present accused
on behalf of main accused Zulfikar demanded extortion amount Rs.
20,000/н from them before one week of the incident. In their detailed
statement both witnesses specifically witness Mayur Rotkar gave details
about incident dated 1/3/2014 and threat given by present accused in the
name of main accused Zulfikar for recovery of extortion amount which was
:5:
paid by them to present accused Rs.20,000/н. Meaning thereby so far as
prima facie there is strong evidence against present accused through those
two witnesses that
he extorted money on behalf of head of Crime
Syndicate, main accused Zulfikar (Accused No.13). Personal search i.e.
Arrest cum Surrender Form of present accused shows that Samsung
Company mobile having sim card was seized during his personal search
(page 77) of chargesheet in Volume I and CDR Report at pages 99, 103,
105 to 109 shows that present accused was in constant touch with accused
Nos.12 and 13 on the day of incident and also even before & after day of
incident. Meaning thereby there is strong prima facie material available on
record to prove offence of conspiracy amongst present accused and
accused Nos.12 and 13 prior and after date of incident. Memorandum
statement and seizure panchanama dated 30/4/2014, page 125, 126 and
127 of Volume II of Chargesheet shows that amount of Rs.12,000/н having
mentioned denominations of currency notes in panchanama came to be
seized from present accused. Story of prosecution shows that assembly of
8 Ц 10 persons committed the incident dated 1/3/2014 and as per reply of
prosecution, CCTV Footage shows that accused was member of said
assembly. It is true that name of accused is not there in FIR as per say of
accused while claiming bail.

However, from above stated material
available on record it can be said that there is no prima facie material to
connect present accused with alleged incident dated 1/3/2014. So also to
say that accused is active member of Crime Syndicate headed by main
accused No.13 Zulfikar who has committed incidents of extortion by
remaining in jail in another case. There is strong prima facie material
against present accused. And therefore it cannot be said that he is entitled
:6:
for bail on parity ground by relying on the order of bail granted by Hon’ble
High Court to the other accused. So far as confession of two accused
namely Irfan Sayyed and Zafeer @ Kadir Hafiz Ansari, it is seen from their
confessional statements recorded by DCP under MCOC Act alongwith other
accused they both showed involvement of present accused namely УGausФ
while giving confessional statement before the concerned authority.
During course of argument, Ld. Adv. for accused submitted that name of
present accused is not there in confessional statement. It is seen that Ld.
Adv. while reading their confessional statement by mistaken left name of
present accused while reading name of other accused. In confession of
Irfan Sayyed dated 27/3/2014 alongwith accused Imtiyaz, Aashiq @
Lukka, name of Gaus (present accused) is given in confessional statement
in para No.4. Similarly, in para No.4, again after name of accused Kadir
Hafiz Ansari and name of Javed Langda name of present accused УGausФ is
there in statement dated 11/8/2014. Meaning thereby both accused who
have given confession also named present accused in their confessional
statement. So, when such is the prima facie material available on record,
it cannot be said provisions of MCOCA are not applicable so far as present
applicant is concerned as argued by Ld. Adv. for accused.
7.

After going through the material available on record, I am
satisfied to say that there is not only role about recovery of Rs.12,000/н
against present accused as submitted on his behalf for claiming bail. All
above stated material goes to show that there is strong prima facie case
against present accused and if such accused is granted bail in the facts and
circumstances of present case, apprehension of prosecution and police that
:7:
he may tamper with prosecution witnesses and may commit similar nature
of offences of extortion cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, I hold that
applicant is not entitled for bail in the present case. Hence, following
order.
ORDER
Bail Application No.7/2014 is rejected.

Date : 26.12.2014
Dictated on
: 26.12.2014
Transcribed on : 29.12.2014
Signed on
:
(P.R.DESHMUKH)
Special Judge,
Under MCOC Act,
Greater Mumbai.