Mumbai, Maharashtra – November 7, 2022 – A Special Judge in the City Civil and Sessions Court for Greater Bombay, Shri Rajesh J. Katariya (C.R. No. 25), today rejected the bail application of businessman Ajay Gosalia (62), who is accused under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) in an alleged extortion case.
Gosalia was seeking bail in DCB CID C.R. No. 150/2022, which initially began as Varsova Police Station C.R. No. 540/2022 (also referred to as 840/22 in the document) for offenses under Sections 386 (extortion), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, provisions of Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999, were added after receiving prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act.
Background of the Case:
According to the prosecution, led by Chief Public Prosecutor (CPP) Mr. Jaysingh Desai, the case originated from a complaint filed on September 26, 2022. The informant alleged that he came into contact with co-accused Riyaz Bhati, who introduced him to Salim Qureshi, also known as Salim Fruit, described as a relative of gangster Chota Shakil.
The informant, fond of card betting, began playing with Salim Fruit in a club. Initially, the informant won, and Salim Fruit owed him money, but deferred payment, suggesting it would be adjusted in future games. Later, Salim Fruit won a game and allegedly demanded an amount of Rs. 62 lakhs from the informant for losses incurred.
It is further alleged that the accused threatened the informant and forcibly obtained his Range Rover car (bearing No. MH-01-BY-7120), valued at Rs. 30 lakhs. The informant was still liable to pay Rs. 32 lakhs to Salim Fruit. Under alleged duress, the informant also paid Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the accused. Co-accused Riyaz Bhati also allegedly issued threats to the informant.
During the course of the investigation, the present applicant, Ajay Gosalia, and other accused were found to be involved in the commission of the crime.
Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:
Advocate Mr. Karnawat, representing Ajay Gosalia, argued that his client had no active role in the alleged crime and did not benefit from any ransom amount. He submitted that Gosalia is a permanent resident of Borivali West, Mumbai, with deep roots in society, and therefore, there was no possibility of him absconding. The defense further stated that nothing incriminating was found from the applicant and sought his release on bail.
Prosecution’s Opposition:
CPP Mr. Jaysingh Desai strongly opposed the bail application, filing a detailed response. He contended that Ajay Gosalia had active participation in the commission of the crime and also pointed out that the applicant has criminal antecedents. The prosecution urged the court to reject the bail application, citing the serious nature of the offenses and Gosalia’s alleged involvement.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Special Judge Rajesh J. Katariya meticulously perused the investigation papers and heard arguments from both sides. The court noted that there were “statements of the witnesses specially alleging that applicant is related with the gangsters Chota Rajan, Chota Shakil and Daud.”
The Judge further observed that as per the prosecution’s case, there was “participation of the applicant in the commission of crime” and that “specific allegations” were made against Gosalia in the statements of witnesses regarding his involvement.
Considering that the investigation in the crime is still in progress and the offenses are serious in nature, particularly with the invocation of the MCOC Act, the court concluded that Ajay Gosalia was not entitled to bail at this stage.
“In view of seriousness of crime and specific allegations against the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of bail,” the order stated.
Accordingly, MCOC Bail Application No. 684/2022 was rejected and disposed of.