… 1 …

IN THE COURT OF MCOCA SPECIAL JUDGE AT GREATER BOMBAY
(Exclusive Special Court constituted for the cases under
MCOCA/TADA/POTA AND OTHER SESSIONS CASES
against the accused-Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan)
BAIL APPLICATION (MCOC) NO.161 OF 2021
(CNR NO. MHCC02-002487-2021)
IN
REMAND APPLICATION 143 OF 2021
Parmanand Hansraj Thakkar,
R/o.202, 4 Building, 2nd Floor, Kulte Ptil, Serve
No. 45, Tidekar Nagar, Pune 411048
…. Applicant
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi
(RC-4(S)/2017/SCU.V/SC-II/New Delhi) & The
State of Maharashtra (at the instance of Panvel
Police Station C.R.No.312/2015)
…. Respondent
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL
JUDGE, MCOCA/POTA/NIA/TADA
SHRI A.T. WANKHEDE.
C.R.NO. : 57.
.

DATE
: 01.04.2021.

———————————————————————————————–Advocate Mr.Hulyalkar for the applicant/accused.
SPP Mr.Gharat for the prosecution/CBI
———————————————————————————————–1.

ORDER
The applicant/accused is asking for grant of bail in connection
… 2 …
with Crime No.312 of 2015 registered with Panvel Police Station, Navi
Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 387, 465, 468,
471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2)
and 3(4) of the MCOC Act.
2.

In short, it is contended by the applicant/accused that he has
been falsely implicated in the offence. There is no substantive or
corroborative evidence to connect with the guilt that he had ever
threatened the informant for extortion or aided or abetted the other coaccused to extort money from the informant. There is no iota of
evidence against the applicant/accused. The other prime accused are
only convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B) r/w.
385 r/w. 34 of the IPC which are bailable offences. The prosecution has
failed to prove the charge under Sections 452, 387, 465, 468, 471 of
IPC and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act against the
prime accused. The first information had come up with a totally
concocted and false story to make counter attack and vent out the
vengeance against the applicant/accused. The prosecution/IO falsely
showed the applicant/accused as absconding in the charge-sheet filed
against the main accused. The applicant/accused was not aware about
that case. The police did not take any efforts to reach to the applicant.
He was all the while present in the cases which are pending in different
courts. The approval granted under the provisions of MCOC Act did not
satisfy the conditions relating to involvement of organized crime and
continuing unlawful activity. The applicant accused is having no
connection or communication with the prime accused. None of the
offence made out against the applicant/accused under the MCOC Act.
There is no iota of evidence brought on record to prove the conspiracy
and meeting of mind between the applicant/accused and the co-
… 3 …
accused. It is contended that the applicant/accused is innocent and
having no criminal antecedents. The applicant/accused never contacted
the first informant nor the co-accused. Whatever allegations levelled
against the applicant/accused are vague, bald and baseless. The
applicant accused has deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of
his absconding and/or running away from the justice. He is ready to
abide by all the conditions imposed if granted bail. He did not tamper
the prosecution witnesses. Hence, urged for grant of bail.
3.

The respondent/CBI opposed the application by filing reply
(Exh.2) and contend that the application filed by the accused is devoid
of merit. There is sufficient evidence on record about the involvement of
applicant/accused in the offence. The oral as well as electronic evidence
in the form of CCTV footage and call recordings of the convicted
accused persons established the fact that the threats were being given to
the informant at the behest of the applicant/accused. The applicant/
accused was absconding and arrested by CBI on 02.02.2019. The
judicial custody of the accused is essential for further investigation of
the case. The applicant/accused approached the main accused Rajendra
Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan who is the head of the organized
crime syndicate. Therefore, it is prayed to reject the bail application.
4.

Heard learned Advocate Mr.Hulyalkar for the applicant/accused
and learned SPP Mr.Gharat for the prosecution/CBI. The learned
Advocate for the applicant/accused also filed written notes of
arguments vide Exh.3.
5.

Perused the bail application and other documents placed on
record. Considering the arguments advanced by the rival parties
… 4 …
following points arise for determination of this court and finding to
them are as given as under :Sr.
no.

Points
Findings
1
Whether the applicant/accused is entitled for
grant of bail ?

Yes.

2
What order ?

As per final
order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO.1
6.

At the instance of the report lodged by the informant Nandu
Vajekar the offence came to be registered against the applicant/accused
and others with Panvel Police Station, Navi Mumbai. Said offence was
investigated by Anti Extortion Cell, Navi Mumbai. During investigation,
they found the involvement of the organized crime syndicate headed by
accused Chhota Rajan in the offence and accordingly, the provisions of
Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act came to be invoked in the
offence with the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of
Police, Navi Mumbai and thereafter, on receiving sanction from
prosecution, the charge-sheet came to be filed before the Special Court
for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 387, 465, 468, 471,
120(B) and 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act
against
accused
Suresh
Shamrao
Shinde
and
others.

The
applicant/accused and one Nitin Ramrao Avaghade were shown as
wanted. The trial held against the accused Suresh Shamrao Shinde and
others vide Special Case no.04 of 2018 along with 03 of 2019 resulted
in conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
385, 120(B), 34 of the IPC by judgment and order dated 04.01.2021.

… 5 …
The present applicant/accused came to be arrested in the offence by CBI
on 02.02.2021. The CBI did not claim for the police custody remand of
the accused.
7.

The learned Advocate for the applicant/accused argued that the
prime accused are already acquitted for the offences punishable under
Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act, however, convicted
under Section 385, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC, which are bailable
offences. Therefore, the applicant/accused is entitled for grant of bail.
The learned Advocate for the applicant/accused relied on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Topandas Vs. the State of
Bombay reported in MANU/SC/0032/1955. Wherein it is held that
“Para 14-The position in law is, therefore, clear that on the
charge as it was framed against the accused nos.1,2,3 and 4
in this case, the accused no.1 could not be convicted for the
offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code when
his alleged co-conspirators accused 2,3 and 4 were
acquitted of that offence.”
8.

On
the
similar
aspect,
the
learned
Advocate
for
the
applicant/accused relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High
Court in the matter of Istiyak Khan Iqubal Khan Vs. the State of
Maharashtra reported in MANU/MH/1463/2014, wherein also by
relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of
Topandas (cited supra), the conviction of the accused is set aside on the
ground that if the prosecution fails to establish the existence of crime
syndicate, then there cannot be an offence by a single person as a
member of the said organized crime syndicate.
9.

In both the above citations, the question before the Hon’ble
Courts was that whether when the other co-accused were acquitted for
… 6 …
the offence punishable under Section 120(A) conviction of a single
person can be maintained or not and consequently, it is held in
negative. However, this is pertaining to the aspect of conviction or
acquittal in case of conspiracy. Here, the bail application is under
consideration. Apparently, specific allegations are levelled against the
applicant/accused that he approached the accused Rajendra Sadashiv
Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan who is the head of the organized crime
syndicate to extract money from the informant Nandu Vajekar. It is not
in dispute that the informant entered into an agreement with
Chhartrapati
Shivaji
Market
Yard
Cooperative
Housing
and
Development Society situated at Market Yard Pune which was run by
the ‘Mathadi’ workers. The applicant/accused being the estate agent at
Pune showed the said plot to the informant Nandu Vajekar. There was
some agreement about payment of commission amount to the
applicant/accused by informant Nandu Vajekar. It is also not in dispute
that informant Nandu Vajekar put to financial loss and then, he entered
into a joint venture agreement with M/s. Viraj Properties for the
development of the plot. Further it is not in dispute that the
applicant/accused filed civil suit no.604/2013 at Civil Court, Pune
against the informant Nandu Vajekar and M/s. Viraj Properties for
recovery of money. Moreover, against the order of Civil Court, Pune, the
applicant/accused filed appeal no.711 of 2013 before the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court. This has tends to show that there was grievance
about the payment of the commission amount. Then suddenly, the
accused Suresh Shamrao Shinde and others stepped into this dispute.
The statement of the informant and his wife are specific that the were
demanding the extortion amount of Rs.25 Crores for and at the behest
of the applicant/accused. Prima-facie, there is reason to believe that the
applicant/accused approached for the recovery of his commission
… 7 …
amount to the organized crime syndicate headed by accused Chhota
Rajan. No doubt, the accused Suresh Shinde and others were only
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 385, 120(B) and
34 of the IPC, but, the reasoning in the judgment clearly shows that it
was an act of the organized crime syndicate. However, as the
punishment for the offence punishable under Section 385 of the IPC is
less than two years, the said activity could not be termed as continuing
unlawful activity.
10.

Fact remains that the invoking of the provisions of MCOC Act in
the offence against the arrested accused in previous case was proved by
the prosecution. The statement of the witnesses, CDR, CCTV footage,
transcript of the conversation prima-facie demonstrate that the
applicant/accused approached the organized crime syndicate for the
recovery of his commission amount. This act of the applicant/accused
falls within the ambit of section 3(2) of the MCOC Act. Therefore, at
this stage, it cannot be said that the offence under the provisions of
MCOC Act cannot be made out against the accused. In this aspect, this
Court is not in consonance with the arguments advanced by the learned
Advocate for the applicant/accused.
11.

Now,
coming
to
the
aspect
of
grant
of
bail
to
the
applicant/accused. Apparently, the trial held against the arrested
accused resulted in conviction, but, for the offences punishable under
Sections 385, 120(B), 34 of the IPC. The applicant/accused came to be
arrested in the offence on 02.02.2021. The CBI did not ask for his police
custody. The CDRs of the mobile of the accused and witnesses, so also,
the CCTV footage are already recovered by the investigating officer. No
doubt, the applicant/accused was absconding during the trial held
… 8 …
against the other accused, however, the abscondance of the accused or
issuance of proclamation against him cannot be a ground for rejection
of his bail. At this stage, it is necessary to keep in mind whether the
accused will be made available or his presence can be secured for the
purpose of the trial. Assuming for the sake of the moment that the
applicant/accused was absconding and avoided arrest, still, there is no
material placed on record by the prosecution that during this period, he
has been indulged in any criminal activity. Rather, there are no criminal
antecedents except this case against the applicant/accused. As such,
there is no likelihood of the applicant/accused to commit any offence
while
on
bail.

No
purpose
would
be
served
to
keep
the
applicant/accused behind the bar for indefinite period, as there is no
possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future. The apprehension
of the prosecution of tampering of witnesses and the possibility of
fleeing away of the accused from justice can be addressed by imposing
stringent conditions on the applicant/accused. Therefore, the applicant/
accused is entitled for grant of bail. Hence, I answer point no.1 in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following order :ORDER
(1) Criminal Bail Application (Exh.161) is allowed.
(2) Applicant/accused-Parmanand Hansraj Thakkar be released
on bail in C.R. no.312/2015 registered with Police Station,
Panvel and registered as Crime No. RC-4(S)/2017/SCU.V/
SC-II/New Delhi with CBI for the offences punishable
under Sections 452, 387, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4)
of the MCOC Act on his furnishing P.B. and S.B. of
Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousands Only) with one or two
solvent sureties in the like amount on the following
conditions:-
… 9 …
a)
Applicant/accused
to
co-operate
the
investigation agency. Applicant/accused is
directed to attend the office of the CBI as and
when called for, till final disposal of the case, so
as to assist the investigating machinery. The
intimation in that regard shall be given to him
in writing.

b)
Applicant/accused shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person/prosecution witness
acquainted with the facts of case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any Police Officer and shall not in
any manner tamper with the prosecution
witnesses.

c)
Applicant/accused is directed to attend the
Police Station, Panvel on every Saturday
between 11:00 am to 05:00 pm for a period of
three months after his release on bail.

d)
Applicant/accused shall not leave Mumbai/Pune
without prior permission of the Investigating
Officer of CBI.

e)
Applicant/accused shall not change his
residence without prior intimation to the
Investigating Officer.

f)
It is made clear that the applicant/accused shall
remain present before this Court as and when
called. Also, the applicant/accused shall ensure
that he is duly represented by his Advocate
before the Court on every date.

(3) Breach of any of the above conditions will amount to
cancellation of bail granted to the applicant/accused.

… 10 …
(4) Bail application(Exh.161) stands disposed off accordingly.
Digitally signed
by A.T.

WANKHEDE
A.T.
WANKHEDE Date:
2021.04.09
13:38:02 +0530
(A.T. WANKHEDE)
Date : 01.04.2021
Place : Mumbai.

SPECIAL JUDGE
Exclusive Special Court constituted for the cases
under MCOCA/TADA/POTA AND OTHER SESSIONS CASES
against the accused-Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan
Dictated and typed on : 01.04.2021.
Signed on
: 05.04.2021.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
DATE : 09.04.2021, AT 01:40 P.M.

MAHESH KESHAV SAKHARKAR
STENOGRAPHER GRADE-I
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court no.)

: SHRI A.T.WANKHEDE. C.R.NO.57.

Date of pronouncement of judgment/order : 01.04.2021.

Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on
: 05.04.2021.

Judgment/order uploaded on
: 09.04.2021, AT 01:40 P.M.