1
BA 101/18 (RA 63/18)
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE DESIGNATED UNDER
M.C.O.C. ACT, 1999 AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION No.101 OF 2018
IN
REMAND APPLICATION No.63/2018
Mr Narsaya s/o. Laxman Jumpala
Aged 55 years, Occ : Contractor,
Residing at Room No.8,
Group No.3, Buddhavihar Road,
Shantaram Chawl, Hariyali,
Vikhroli (East), Mumbai
Е Applicant/Accused No.7
V/s
Asst. Commissioner of Police
(Through Anti Terrorist Squad
Kalachowki, Vikhroli Division
vide C.R. No.2/2018)
Е Respondent/Prosecution
Appearance : н
Mr A. Y. Bansode, Ld. advocate for applicant/accused No.7
Ms Lata Chheda, Ld. Spl.PP. for respondent
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER M.C.O.C. ACT
SHRI. M. B. DATYE (C.R.NO.21)
DATE : 26/02/2018
.

Accused No.7 prays for bail under section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
2]
It is argued by ld. advocate Mr Keswani for applicant that
except, passbooks nothing is found from applicant.

He has no
connection or concern with the alleged banned association. Applicant/
accused is a contractor of Reliance Energy. He has passed M.A. He has
got Sanad of Andhra Pradesh. He is staying in Maharashtra for 15
2
years.

BA 101/18 (RA 63/18)
In the First Information Report, it is said that the books,
pamphlets, banners of the Association i.e. Communist Party of India
(MAOISTs.) are found from other accused. Such material is not found
from him. He is in custody for one and half months. He be released on
bail.
3]
Investigating Officer filed say that applicant/accused has
collected money for the Association. It has transpired in investigation
that he used to threaten other contractors and used to get money from
them, for the Association. Application be rejected.
4]
Section 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
provides punishment for being member of terrorist gang, or
organisation.

Punishment is for a term which may extend to
imprisonment for life and fine. Section 38 of the Act relates to offence
relating to membership of a terrorist organisation.

Punishment is
imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or with fine or with
both.

Section 40 of the Act provides punishment for a term not
exceeding 14 years or with fine or both for raising funds for terrorist
organisation.
5]
Ld. Spl.PP. Mr Solkar argued that there are statements of
witnesses telling how applicant has collected funds for Association.
Investigation is going on. At this stage, that is sufficient, application be
rejected.
6]
He relies on ratio in Redaul Hussain Khan Versus
National Investigation Agency [(2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 521].
In that case, earlier Chief Judicial Magistrate granted some police
custody. It was alleged that accused collected funds for an organisation
3
BA 101/18 (RA 63/18)
that was subsequently declared to be ‘terrorist association’.

Their
Lordships of the Hon’ble Apex Court said that order granting further
custody and rejecting application for bail, were both not required to be
interfered. Both petitions challenging them were dismissed.
7]
I have gone through the statements of witnesses. They say
that the Association of Contractors used to get money from the
employer. Applicant/accused is secretary of the Association. One of the
accused and P.W. approached the President of the Association, for
donation. The President said that they will get donation provided they
give receipt.
name.

Two cheques of Rs.1,50,000/н were prepared without
Applicant took the cheques.

It is revealed that they are
enchashed in the names of one of the accused and P.W. From the
accused, who got the funds sufficient material concerning the banned
association, is recovered.

P.W., who got the money was made to
withdraw the amounts from A.T.M. and pay it to applicant.
8]
Thus, prima facie, it is seen that applicant/accused is not
that innocent, as shown. The witnesses say that he forced Association
to give donation to the applicant and P.W.
9]
It cannot be said that applicant has no concern with the
Association. The investigation is pending. It is not safe to release him
on bail. He is likely to abscond and influence the witnesses. I pass
following order :н
ORDER
Application for bail by applicant/accused No.7 is rejected.
Dt.26/02/2018
( M. B. DATYE )
Special Judge,
Under M.C.O.C. Act,
Gr. Bombay
4
BA 101/18 (RA 63/18)
УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDERФ.
15/03/2018 at 12:10 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
V. V. Kulkarni
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room : H.H.J. Shri. M. B. Datye
No.)
Court Room No.21
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER
: 26/02/2018
ORDER signed by P.O. on
: 14/03/2018
ORDER uploaded on
: 15/03/2018