B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
MHCC020164102022
1
O/Ext.1
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER MCOC ACT,
FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW EXT.1
IN
BAIL APPLICATION (MCOC) NO.771 OF 2022
(CNR NO.MHCC02-016410-2022)
Satish Jethanand Dhanani,
Aged: about 60 years, Occ.: Business,
R/at- A-2906, Oberoi Woods, Behind Oberoi
Mall, Goregaon (E), Mumbai.

Е Applicant / accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Anti Extortion Cell, DCB
CID, vide C.R.No.115/2013.)

Е Prosecution
CORAM : THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND
THE SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER
MCOC/NIA/POTA ACT
B.D. SHELKE (C.R. NO.55)
DATE : 19.12.2022.

Learned Advocates:
Mr. Satish Mane Shinde, for applicant/accused.
Mr. Sunil Gonsalves, SPP for State.
Mr. Abdul Kader Millwala for the Intervenor.
ORDER
This is an application u/S.439 of Cr.P.C. and u/S.21(4)(b) of the
MCOC Act for bail, filed by applicant / accused Ц Satish Jethanand
Dhanani. He is arrested in Crime No.115/2013 u/Ss.387, 320B, 34 of
Indian Penal Code (for short, СIPCТ) r/w. u/Ss.3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short, СMCOC
ActТ) registered with DCB, CID, Mumbai. He has been arrested on
25.11.2022. He was remanded to Police Custody till 05.12.2022 and
since 05.12.2022, he is in Judicial Custody.
2.

The prosecution case in brief is that, informant is engaged in
B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
2
O/Ext.1
construction business under the name and style Manmandir Properties
and Jayashree Reality Pvt. Ltd. Office of informant is situated at 49,
Swastik Plaza, V. L. Mehta Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai. In the year
2008, MOU was executed with Hari Ramnani, Kishor Vatnani, Rajan
Sujnani and Varsha Sujnani through Mr. Nitin Mehta who was having
acquaintance with informant. These persons are having their office
namely Varshraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd. at 7-C, Senior Estate, Parsi Panchayat
Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai. Hari Ramnani, Kishor Vatnani, Rajan
Sujnani and Varsha Sujnani are the Directors and Share Holders in said
company. Varshraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd. had filed a suit against Mangesh
Sawant and others the owner of Sayali Group of Companies before the
HonТble High Court, Mumbai bearing its number 3300/2007 and
3301/2007. The informant was aware about said dispute pending
before the HonТble High Court, still he decided to purchase the
properties from Varshraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd. On 25-06-2008, MOU was
executed. Thereafter, the informant was declared as a authorized person
of Varshraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd. In the year 2011, again informant paid
certain amount then also Varshraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd. company was not
transferred to the informant.
3.

In the beginning of the year 2012, informant came to know that
the directors of Varshraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd. intending to transfer said
company to Sayli Group of Company owned by Mr. Mangesh Sawant. It
is also came to the notice of informant that the meeting was held
between them at Dubai. The informant contacted Rajan Sujnani and
made inquiry about said meeting, but he started avoiding to the
informant. Thereafter, the informant filed Suit No.1418/2012 before
the HonТble High Court against Varshraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd. seeking relief
not to alienate the properties owned by the said company.

B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
4.

3
O/Ext.1
Further, the contention of prosecution shows that on 03.09.2013
at about 17.15 hours, accused Ravi Poojari gave threats to informant on
his mobile phone from International phone No.40330476099 and
hurled abuses to the informant and asked to settle the dispute with
Rajan Sujnani, Kishor Vatnani in respect of plots situated at Powai.
Again, accused Ravi Poojari made phone call to the informant from
International
phone No.6664748499
and asked
the
informant,
УWhether he had talked with Rajan Sujnani and Kishor Vatnani?Ф, on
which informant asked him that he had no talk due to festival of Jain
religion and he will talk later on. At that occasion also accused Ravi
Poojari hurled abuses to him. The informant had recorded those phone
calls and then filed complaint on 04.09.2013 and 06.09.2013 before
Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai. Even thereafter, during
the period of 09.09.2013 to 17.10.2013 Ravi Poojari made phone calls
from different International phone numbers to the informant, however,
he has not accepted those calls. On 23.09.2013 he had lodged
complaint in that regard towards Police Commissioner, Mumbai. In said
complaint, he had contended that Ravi Poojari, Rajan Sujnani, Kishor
Vatnani, Mangesh Sawant and others gave threats to kill him, therefore,
on 22.11.2013, Crime No.403/2013 under section 387 r/w. 34 of IPC
was registered with Juhu police station, Mumbai against Ravi Poojari
and others. Thereafter, investigation of said crime was made over to
AEC, Mumbai in view of the order dated 22.11.2013. Thereafter, Crime
No.115/2013 under Section 387 r/w. 34 of IPC was registered with
AEC, Mumbai and further investigation was entrusted to PI Mr. Sanjeev
Dhumal.
5.

Even thereafter, during the period of 02.09.2014 to 12.10.2014
accused- Ravi Poojari made phone calls from different International
B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
4
O/Ext.1
phone numbers to the informant and threatened him. After conducting
investigation, PI Dhumal filed report against Ravi Poojari alone for
granting СA summaryТ before Additional CMM, 37 th Esplanade Court,
Mumbai. The informant filed protest petition through advocate on
23.08.2017. Thereafter, the Ld. MM Court vide order dated 23.12.2021,
issued directions to conduct further investigation. Accordingly, PI Mr.
Taralgatti conducted further investigation. During his investigation, he
recorded statements of witnesses, collected CD in respect of
conversation between informant and accused Ravi Poojari. He
transpired that accused Rajan Sujnani, Kishor Vatnanai and Satish
Dhanani (applicant) had taken possession entering into the office at
Vapi and Mumbai. He also revealed that at the instance of accused
Rajan Sujnani, Kishor Vatnani, gangster Ravi Poojari gave threats for
settlement of dispute. He also found that all accused conspired with
each other and gave threats to the informant through Ravi Poojari to kill
him. Accused Rajan Sujnani, Kishor Vatnani, Satish Dhanani are well
aware that Ravi Poojari is well known gangster, still so as to compel the
informant for settlement of dispute pertaining to immovable properties
situated at Powai contacted accused Ravi Poojari through Parshuram
Shinde (now deceased) and they have committed the offence becoming
members of the Organized Crime Syndicate headed by gangster Ravi
Poojari. At the instance of these accused, accused Ravi Poojari time and
again gave threats to kill informant so as to compel him to settle the
dispute pertaining to the properties situated at Powai. Thus, these
accused procured the help of gangster Ravi Poojari. Various offences of
murder, attempt to murder, extortion are pending at Banglore and
Mumbai against gangster Ravi Poojari. He is engaged in continuous
illegal activities of extortion, giving threats to respectable industrialists
and well known persons engaged in film industry, for pecuniary gains
B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
5
O/Ext.1
for himself and his Organized Crime Syndicate. Therefore, proposal
was submitted to Jt. Commissioner of Police, Mumbai for prior
approval.

Jt. Commissioner of Police after going through the said
proposal and relevant documents, issued order on 12.09.2022 granting
prior approval under section 23 (1)(a) of MCOC Act. Thereafter, this
accused came to be arrested on 25.11.2022.
police custody.

He was remanded to
Now, he is in judicial custody.

Therefore, filed
application for grant of bail.
6.

The prosecution has resisted this application by filing its reply
Exh.03, reiterated the contents of remand application and FIR in it and
also raised the grounds for rejecting bail application filed by the
applicant/accused.
7.

Following points arise for my determination and I have recorded
my findings against them for the reasons given there under :
Sr. No.

Points
Findings
1.

Whether the applicant/ accused Satish
No.

Dhanani made out case for grant of
bail?
2.

What order ?

As per final order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS.1 AND 2:
8.

Heard arguments of both sides. Ld. Counsel Mr. Satish Mane-
Shinde for the applicant / accused submitted that, the copy of Suit
No.1418/2012 is filed on record by the accused. This accused/applicant
is not party to the suit. He is not party in the alleged MOU. There is no
whisper about name of this applicant/accused in the said suit. Interim
B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
6
O/Ext.1
order was passed by the HonТble High Court not to deal with the
property which was subject matter in said suit, still this informant
during pendancy of suit got executed MOU. He has not paid balance
consideration amount. Later on, the informant had filed another suit.
Allegations made by informant shows that he had received threatening
calls from Ravi Poojari. Name of present applicant/accused not figured
in the FIR.

The applicant/accused has no interest in the disputed
property. Initially the crime was registered with Juhu police station.
Later on, it was made over to AEC, Mumbai and Crime No.115/2013
registered with AEC. One more FIR was lodged on 16.12.2015 with
AEC. In СA summary reportТ submitted before Addl. CMM Court, there
was no material against other accused except Ravi Poojari, whereabouts
of Ravi Poojari were not known to the police, therefore, СA summary
reportТ was filed. The Ld. Addl. CMM Court directed further
investigation. Thereafter, name of present applicant/accused has been
implicated in this crime.

This applicant/accused was not called for
interrogation. He has no concern with properties which are in dispute.
There is no material in respect of involvement or complicity of this
accused in alleged crime.

Applicant/accused is a broker.

allegations, he was having benefit only 10% brokerage.
connected with any gangster.

As per
He is not
On the contrary, in FIR filed by the
applicant/accused, one of the witness in this case is an accused. The
applicant/accused himself is a victim. Said case is pending before Addl.
CMM Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. All other accused are resident of
Dubai and other countries. Ravi Poojari is arrested in another case.
There is no prima facie material against this applicant/accused. Thus,
as per his submission, this accused is entitled for bail.
9.

The Ld. counsel for the applicant/accused placed his reliance on
B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
7
O/Ext.1
the judgment of HonТble Karnataka High Court in case of, Earamallappa
vs. State of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.33202/2016 decided on
22.07.2016.

Wherein HonТble Karnataka High Court in para No.46
observed that ;
УTherefore, the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner can not be accepted. However, the
material on record shows that at present there is no
satisfactory material to ascertain the involvement of
the petitioner in the continuing unlawful activity.
The investigation is in progress. Therefore, it can not
be ruled out that prosecution may come out with
reliable material. At this stage, it can not be
concluded whether KCOCA is attracted or not
against the petitioner. However, the bar or restriction
for grant of bail can not operate against the
petitioner. If bail petition is filed by the petitioner, it
needs to be considered on merits keeping in view the
nature of offence and circumstances of the case.Ф
Lastly, urged for granting bail.
10.

The Ld. SPP Mr. Sunil Gonsalves submitted that in above cited
case, the HonТble Karnataka High Court made observations that the
material on record shows that at present there is no satisfactory
material to ascertain the involvement of the petitioner in the continuing
unlawful activity. The investigation is in progress. Therefore, it can not
be ruled out that prosecution may come out with reliable material. At
this stage, it can not be concluded whether MCOCA is attracted or not
against the petitioner and lastly, dismissed the petition.

As per his
B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
8
O/Ext.1
submission, this citation is not helpful to the accused/applicant.
11.

The Ld. SPP further submitted that in present case at time, the
accused is arrested on 25.11.2022. He was remanded to police custody
till 05.12.2022. The investigation is in primary stage. Still, there is
prima facie material in respect of complicity of this accused in the crime
registered against him. Even during further investigation also
investigation agency can collect material against him. Hence, at this
stage, it can not be said that there is no material on record in respect of
his complicity in this crime. He further submitted that the copy of MOU
recovered during the course of investigation by the I.O. shows that this
accused is a party and signatory to the MOU. This MOU is not a part of
the suit. This MOU executed outside the Court. He further submitted
that the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 and 164 of
Cr.P.C. shows that meeting was held between all the accused including
this applicant/accused. In said meeting, they had conversation with
gangster Ravi Poojari. They had hired services of Ravi Poojari so as to
give threats to the informant so as to compel him to arrive at
settlement. It is economic transaction of Rs.18 Crores. These statements
of the witnesses at this stage suffices to hold that there is sufficient
prima facie material in respect of involvement and complicity of this
accused in illegal activities of the members of Organized Crime
Syndicate headed by gangster Ravi Poojari. Thus, as per his submission,
applicant/accused is not entitled for bail considering nature and gravity
of the offence and primary stage of the investigation.
12.

The Ld. SPP Mr. Gonsalves placed his reliance on decision in case
of, Gajanan Damodhar Mhatre vs. State of Maharashtra, Cri. Appeal
No.350/2017 decided on 10.08.2018. Wherein HonТble Bombay High
B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
9
O/Ext.1
Court, Bench at Aurangabad observed in para No.15 that;
УHere in this case the appellant has not challenged the
said order which had granted sanction of approval for
the application of offence under MCOC Act. He had
filed only an application for discharge from the offence
punishable under MCOC Act. Even if, for the sake of
arguments, it is stated that he is also challenging the
approval order, it is to be seen that whether said
authority had applied his mind or not, would be
decided at the end of trial, after the evidence is
adduced. If connected to the offence under section
302 of Indian Penal Code, the offence under MCOC
Act is transpired against co-accused, then applicant
can not seek discharge only for that offence by
segregating himself from other accused persons. His
trial in such a manner can not be segregated. He had
not sought discharge from the entire case, therefore,
there is question of maintainability of the application.
Discharge on limited point or in respect of some
offence only is not contemplated under section 227 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.Ф
13.

The intervenor/original complainant filed his written reply at
Exh.05 and the Ld. counsel representing to the intervenor submitted
that this reply may be treated as his written notes of arguments to the
bail application. He contended that applicant/accused tried to mislead
this court by potrating that the dispute was between the intervenor and
directors of Varshraj Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and his name had not been
named in the FIR registered with Juhu police station and civil dispute.

B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
10
O/Ext.1
He further contended that this applicant/accused is working behind the
curtain to take advantage of the dispute between the intervenor and
other accused. They had hatched criminal conspiracy inter-se and
agreed to share the proceeds of crime between themselves using the
services of gangster. The investigation conducted till date shows the role
played by this applicant/accused. He is the main person who introduced
other accused with gangster Ravi Poojari and hiring his services. The
copy of MOU clearly shows that he is interested in gaining pecuniary
advantage. He is also party to the conspiracy for financial gain using the
services of gangster. Hence, urged for rejecting application.
14.

After hearing the arguments of both the sides, I have gone
through the documents placed on record by the accused. The copy of
FIR in C.R. No.324/2013 under section 406, 420 r/w.34 of IPC
registered on 31.06.2013 with Borivali Police Station shows that, it has
been registered on complaint filed by the Dinesh Mehrani and Nitin
Mehta, Vijay Mehta, the witnesses in present case are accused in said
case. He also placed on record the copy of statement dated 31.10.2017
placed before Jt. Commissioner of Police, Crawford Market, Mumbai. I
also gone through the copy of plaint in Suit No.1418/2012 filed as
Annexure- СAТ. It shows that present applicant/accused is neither party
in said suit nor any whisper against him in the pleading.
15.

I have also gone through the copies of investigation papers
including statements of witnesses recorded by the investigation officer
placed before this Court for decision of this application. At this stage,
the copy of MOU dated 29.05.2012 executed by and between
Parshuram Shinde, Mr. B. Madhusudan, Mr. Hari A. Ramnani,
Mr. Kishor Vatnani and present applicant/accused- Satish Dhanani
B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
11
O/Ext.1
shows that they are parties and have been holding talks with the
owners/title holders and right holders of property situated at CTS
No.1/17-B and 6 of village- Ropri, Tal. Kurla, Adishankaracharya Marg,
S-ward, Powai, Mumbai. They will render the services against the
payment of remuneration either in cash or in kind (by way of area in
the said developed property). They also referred percentage of share of
remuneration in this MOU. It appears that this applicant/accused is a
signatory at serial No.05 in this MOU.
16.

Apart from above documents of MOU, the statements of the
witnesses placed on record before this court shows that how the
documents of MOU has been recovered during the Course of
investigation. Further, these statements of the witnesses shows that the
meeting was held between accused Kishor Vatnani, Satish Dhanani,
Rajan Sujnani and others in respect of disputed properties situated at
Powai. It further shows that this accused was well acquainted with
gangster Ravi Poojari. The meetings were held at the house of
Parshuram Shinde situated at Borivali. They had hired the services of
gangster Ravi Poojari so as to give threats to informant. Thus, at this
stage, there is sufficient prima facie material in respect of involvement
of this applicant/accused in crime registered against him. Moreover, at
this stage, the investigation is in progress. If, he is released on bail, the
possibility of tampering prosecution evidence, can not be ruled out. The
possibility of collecting material during further investigation in addition
to material already on record, can not be ruled out. Thus, in view of
the bar contained under Section 21(4)(b) of the MCOC Act, the
applicant/accused is not entitled for bail.
17.

In above cited case before the HonТble Karnataka High Court the
B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
12
O/Ext.1
petition filed by the petitioner for quashing FIR was rejected. The
observations in para No.46 in said judgment shows that bar/restriction
for grant of bail can not operates against the petitioner.

However,
Section 21(4)(b) of MCOC Act clearly contemplates that if there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail,
then only bail can be granted. In present case at hand as discussed
herein-above the material placed on record shows prima facie the
complicity of accused in the crime registered against him. Therefore, the
ratio laid down and observations made by the HonТble Karnataka High
Court are not helpful to the applicant/accused. Moreover, in respect of
decision cited on behalf of prosecution, the issue in respect of discharge
of accused was involved before the HonТble Bombay High Court, Bench
at Aurangabad. In present case at hand, no issue of discharge is
involved at this stage. Therefore, said decision also not helpful to the
prosecution in this case. In view of this discussion, this court concluded
that accused is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 in
the negative and pass following order :
ORDER
The Bail Application (MCOC) No.771 of 2022 of applicant Ц
Satish Jethanand Dhanani is hereby rejected and disposed of,
accordingly.

babarao
dnyanoba
shelke
Dated: 19.12.2022.

Dictated on
Typed on
Checked on
Signed on
:
:
:
:
19.12.2022.
19.12.2022.
19.12.2022.
19.12.2022.

Digitally signed
by babarao
dnyanoba shelke
Date:
2022.12.20
16:27:15 +0530
(B.D. SHELKE)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
& SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER MCOC ACT
GREATER MUMBAI.

B.A. (MCOC) No.771/22
13
O/Ext.1
У CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDERФ.
UPLOAD DATE
UPLOAD TIME
NAME OF
STENOGRAPHER
20.12.2022
04.20 p.m.

Ms. M. D. Hirole
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No. 55) HHJ Shri. B.D. Shelke
Date of pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
19.12.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on
19.12.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
20.12.2022