MHCC020064312020
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.811 OF 2020
IN
R.A. NO. 298 OF 2020
IN
C.R.NO.30 OF 2020
Indira Vitthal Pujari
Age- 62 years, Occupation-Household,
Residing at Building No.19, G/05,
Anand Vihar Complex, Ground Floor,
Near Railway Crossing Kalwa (E),
Dist- Thane
V/s
The State of Maharashtra
Through Crime Branch Unit-7
LBS Marg, near Sarvodaya Hospital
Ghatkopar (w), Mumbai-400 086
CR No. 30/2020
Vikhroli Police Station Mumbai
CR no. 42/2020
…Applicant
….Respondents
Prosecution
Adv Mr.Dinesh Kadam for the applicant
SPP Mr. Soshte for the State.
Coram :
C.R.No.

D. S. Deshmukh
Additional Sessions Judge
Gr.Mumbai.
21
..2/-
.. 2 ..

1.

BA 811/2020
ORAL ORDER
(Dated July 15th, 2020)
This is an application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. The
Crime Branch Unit-7 Mumbai CR No. 30/2020 has registered offences
punishable u/s. 387, 452, 120(b) r/w. 34 of the IPC and section 3 (1) (ii),
3(2), 3(4) 3 (5) of MCOC, Act 1999. against the applicant.
2.

The prosecution filed say vide Ex.2 and contested the
application.
3.

Heard learned Adv.Mr. Dinesh Kadam for the applicant and
learned SPP Mr. Soshte for the State. Learned Adv.Mr. Dinesh Kadam for
the applicant relied on the case of Surjitsingh Bhagatsingh Gambhir V/s.
The State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 913/2019 decided on
13.09.2019)
4.
construction
In short, the prosecution’s case is that informant is doing
business.

On
22.06.2018
for
reconstruction
he
has
demolished building. On that day, at about 21.14 hours, he has received
International Call from gangster Prasad Pujari. On call he gave threat
saying that “ Hi, I ‘m Prasad Pujari. Last time talk to you, you said work
not started now you’re work going on ajit take this seriously talk do
payment or stop, don’t invite trouble. I want 1 cr or I shoot, you free to
complain police even I am waiting for targets thanks take care”. The caller
demanded ransom of Rs. 1 crores. Again and again informant received
..3/-
.. 3 ..

BA 811/2020
threat calls. On 30.01.2020 co-accused Sunil Angane approached to the
complainant and made inquiry about his construction. During conversation
he remind threat calls of Prasad Pujari to the informant. Therefore,
informant approached in Vikhroli Police Station and lodged complaint.
Vikhroli Police Station registered CR No. 42/2020. Subsequently, complaint
has been referred to Crime Branch , Unit-7. Crime Branch Unit -7
registered CR No. 30/2020. In investigation, it was reflected that applicant
is a mother of absconding accused Prasad Pujari, who has deposited
amount of Rs. 25,000/- in the bank account of arrested accused Sunil
Angane. Therefore, she has been arrested and now she is JC. In
investigation , it was reflected that there is a Organised Crime Syndicate.
The work of said syndicate is under the threat calls, they are demanding
the ransom, therefore, provisions of MCOC Act are applied to the existing
crime bearing CR No. 30/2020.
5.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the
provisions of MCOC Act are not applicable to the present case because
applicant is not the member of organised crime syndicate. She is the
mother of absconding accused Prasad Pujari. Two to three times she
travelled abroad for meeting of her son. It does not mean that she is a
member of organised crime syndicate headed by her son.
6.

Learned SPP Mr. Soshte for the State submitted that
considering the nature of the offence and previous antecedents, the
..4/-
.. 4 ..

BA 811/2020
prosecution has rightly applied the provisions of MCOC Act against the
applicant and co-accused. Therefore, application be rejected.
7.

I have gone through the application and say filed by the
investigating officer. It appears that admittedly, applicant is a mother of
head of the syndicate Prasad Pujari. It appears from the investigation
papers 2-3 times, applicant travelled to abroad for meeting of her son
(absconding accused Prasad Pujari). It appears from the investigation
papers, co-accused Sunil Angane approached to the complainant and
remind threat call given by Prasad Pujari to complainant and also remind
ransom amount. It appears from the investigation papers, applicant has
transferred amount of Rs.25,000/- to the account of co-accused Sunil
Angane. It means that on the say of absconding accused Prasad Pujari, that
amount has been transferred by the applicant to the account of co-accused
Sunil Angane for the work of ransom. Thus, it is clear from the
investigation papers, there is an Organised Crime syndicate run by
absconding accused Prasad Pujari and applicant is a member of organized
crime syndicate. It is well settled in the case of Govind Sakharam Ubhe
V/s. State of Maharashtra (2009 ALL MR Cri.1903), the criteria of the
offences at discredit is against the Organised Crime Syndicate and not the
individual members of the same syndicate. Therefore, being a member of
organized crime syndicate, applicant is also primafacie involved in the
commission of the offence.

..5/-
.. 5 ..

8.

BA 811/2020
Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to record that the
applicant is primafacie not guilty of the offences as contemplated under
section 21 (4) of the MCOC Act. Therefore, in my view, it would not be
proper to release the applicant on bail. With this, I pass the following
order.
ORDER
Bail Application No. 811/2020 is rejected.
Authenticated copy be given to the parties.

Date.15.07.2020
Date of Dictation
Date of typing
Date of signature
:15.07.2020
:15.07.2020
:
(D.S.Deshmukh)
Additional Sessions Judge
Gr.Mumbai
..6/-
.. 6 ..

BA 811/2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
29.07.2020
02.00 pm
( Mayuresh P Tathe)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
HHJ Shri. D.S.Deshmukh (C.R.No.21)
room No.)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
15.07.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
29.07.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
29.07.2020
../-