IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR MCOCA
AT BOMBAY
MCOCA BAIL APPLICATION NO.592 OF 2021
Reeta Santoshkumar Singh
… Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
(through Dadar Railway Police station.)

…Prosecution.

Learned Advocate Mr.R. V. Gupta for the accused.
Learned S.P.P. Mr. S.E. Soshte for the State.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI. Dinesh E. KOTHALIKAR (C.R.NO.25)
DATED : 13th July,2021.
(DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT)
ORAL ORDER
1.

By this application, the applicant who is accused in C.R. No.

286/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 387, 392, 195 (a),
506, 507, 120­B, 384, 385, 212, 224 of IPC and Sections 3 (2), 3(3), 3
(4), 3(5) and Section 4 of MCOC Act, has claimed bail under Section
439 of Cr.P.Code.

2.

According to the applicant, she was arrested by the police on
28.05.2021 and she was produced before the Learned Metropolitan
Magistrate and was remanded to police custody till 01.06.2021 and
thereafter she was remanded to judicial custody. While the applicant
:2:
was in judicial custody, she has referred an application before the
Learned Sessions Judge for grant of bail and the same was allowed by
the Learned Sessions Judge on 15.06.2021. Thereafter on 16.06.2021,
prior approval to invoke the provisions of MCOC Act was accorded.
Thereafter the applicant was produced before this Court on 11.06.2021.
She was remanded to police custody till 29.06.2021 and thereafter she
was in judicial custody.

3.

The applicant claims that she is innocent and that she has
nothing to do with the alleged offence. According to her, she has been
falsely implicated in this case and therefore, her custodial interrogation
is not necessary. She has no criminal antecedents. It is her contention
that since she was not involved in criminal cases and there is no
possibility of commission of similar crime, if she is released on bail.
Therefore, it is prayed for grant of bail.

4. The prosecution by filing reply Exh.03, has objected the application.
It is claimed that the informant has lodged the report under section 154
of Cr.P.Code alleging that on 07.04.2021 at about 14.45 hours he was
running a business at Langda Bridge and selling masks. According to
him, at that time, accused No.1 Santosh had reached at the said spot
and he had given a kick blow on the back of the informant. When the
informant has asked accused No.1 Santosh as to why he was assaulting,
upon which accused Santosh has informed that though the informant
was doing the business from 2nd April, he did not pay hafta at the rate of
Rs. 500/­ per day.

Therefore, accused Santosh made demand of
Rs.3500/­ from the informant and threatened to assault him.

:3:
Thereafter, since the informant did not pay the amount claimed by the
accused Santosh, he had threatened the informant and took up 1150
masks worth Rs.7475/­.

5.

It was alleged that accused Santosh and his companions have
collected hafta from the hawkers and have acquired property.
According to him, since there is danger to the life of hawkers, no one
come forward to lodge complaint against the accused.

6.

On the basis of the report, C.R.No.286/2021 for the offence
punishable under Sections 387 and 392 of IP Code was registered.
Thereafter, during investigation, involvement of rest of the accused was
revealed and therefore, they were arrested. It was found that applicant
and other members of the gang were involved in hatching criminal
conspiracy and have acquired property by collecting the amount of hafta
from the hawkers. During investigation CCTV footing recorded in the
CCTV camera on Langda bridge was inspected. It was found that there
was substance in the report lodged by the informant. Accordingly spot
panchnama was drawn, statements of the witnesses were recorded. The
car bearing No.MH­46­AD­2003 was seized on 09.04.2021. Co­accused
Pankesh and Vikrant have threatened the informant to withdraw the
complaint lodged against accused Santosh. Thereafter, said Pankesh
was arrested.

Since, it was revealed during investigation that the
accused persons were engaged in demanding extortion by putting the
hawkers in fear, the provisions punishable under Sections 384 and 385
were invoked.

:4:
7.

During the course of house search of co­accused Lata, the
cash amount of Rs.92320/­, gold and silver ornaments, papers relating
to purchase of the property were found and the same come to be seized.
Thereafter, the applicant was arrested. After her arrested when she was
to be brought to the police station, she had made an attempt to escape
from the police custody.
8.

It was revealed during the investigation that accused No.1
out of the amount of crime proceeds had purchased movable as well as
immovable properties. Out of 1150 masks 900 masks were seized at the
instance of accused Santosh. It was revealed that accused Santosh had
purchased car bearing No.UP­42­AB­8903. Further, he had deposited
cash amount of Rs.8.40 lacs in the account of his brother­in­law.
Further, 10 rooms are recorded in the name of accused Santosh and
present applicant.
9.

According to the prosecution, during investigation, it was
revealed that accused Santosh had agreed to introduce members in
union. Therefore, he had paid an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/­ through the
applicant to the office barriers of Vanchit Bahujan Mathadi Transport
and General Labour Union on the say of accused Sanjay. The amount of
Rs.1,27,000/­ out of the amount of crime proceeds was kept with the
office bearers of said union. Said amount was seized under panchnama.
Further, out of the amount of crime proceeds accused Santosh had kept
an amount of Rs.46,500/­ to accused Sanjay and that he had kept the
same with his brother. Accordingly said amount of Rs. 46,500/­ was
seized.

Accused Sameer had kept the bullet motorcycle and cash
amount of Rs.16,500/­ which was belonging to accused Santosh with
his friend. Said bullet motorcycle and cash amount of Rs.16,500/­ has
:5:
also been seized under panchnama. It is claimed by the prosecution
that if the applicant is released on bail, she would dispose off the
properties which stand in her name. Further, she has suppressed the
economic transaction in respect of bank account and investment and if
she is released on bail, she would dispose off those investments. It is
claimed that investigation in the crime is in progress and therefore, if
the applicant is released on bail, she would pressurize the prosecution
witnesses. Therefore, it is prayed for rejection of the application.
10.

I have heard the submissions made by Ld. Advocate
Mr.Gupta for the applicant and Ld. SPP Mr. Soshte.
11.

On the basis of the submissions made before me by Learned
advocate for applicant and Learned S.P.P., following points arise before
me, for determination and I have recorded my findings against them for
the reasons stated hereinafter;
Sr.
No.

POINTS
FINDINGS
01.

Whether the applicant has made out the case
for grant of bail?

No
02.

What order?

Application stands
rejected.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO.1:
12.

Learned advocate for the applicant Mr.Gupta has vehemently
submitted that even if the contention acquired by the prosecution is
accepted as it is in that case also the case of prosecution would not go
further than attributing the offences punishable under Section 4 of the
:6:
Act.
13.

According to him, the applicant being lady is entitled to be
released on bail. He would claim that the applicant has been arrested in
this case because she is the wife of accused Santosh. Therefore, he has
prayed to release the applicant on bail by exercising discretion.
14.

Per contra, Ld. SPP has submitted that investigation in the
present crime is still in progress and therefore, if the applicant is
released on bail she would tamper with the prosecution evidence. He
would claim that there is no substance in the contention of the applicant
and that she has been arrested only being the wife of accused Santosh.
Therefore, according to Mr. Soshte, the Ld. SPP, there is prima facie
evidence showing the involvement of the applicant in this crime.
Hence, he has prayed for rejection of the application.
15.

Upon perusal of the reply filed by the prosecution, it would
reveal that still the investigation is at initial stage. It is to be noted here
that this Court has cancelled the bail which was granted in favour of co­
accused Lata and Vikram and that they were directed to appear before
this Court on 13.07.2021.

However, till this time, they have not
surrendered before this Court. In this background, if the applicant is
released on bail at this stage certainly that would hamper the
investigation.
16.

Admittedly, the report was lodged against accused Santosh
only. Further during investigation, it was found that movable as well
as immovable properties have been acquired out of the crime proceeds
:7:
in the name of the applicant.

Considering this aspect, there is no
hesitation to hold that there is prima facie material showing the
involvement of the applicant in the crime, irrespective of the fact, her
name does not figure in the report lodged under Section 154 of the
Cr.P.Code.
17.

Considering this aspect, in my view, till the investigation is
going on and the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.Code is
submitted, it would not be just to exercise discretion in favour of the
applicant. Therefore, I conclude that the applicant has failed to make
out a case for grant of bail.

Consequently, I answer point No.1 in the
negative.
AS TO POINT NO.2 :­
10.

In the background of finding recorded against point No.1 in
the negative, the application fails.

Resultantly, I proceed to pass
following order;
ORDER
Bail Application in MCOC No. 592 of 2021 stands rejected.

Date : 13.07.2021.
Dictated on
Typed on
Signed on
: 13.07.2021
: 13.07.2021
: 13.07.2021
(Dinesh E. Kothalikar)
Special Judge, MCOCA
City Civil & Sessions Court,
For Greater Bombay