Mumbai, July 20, 2020 – A Special Judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for Greater Mumbai, Ashutosh N. Karmarkar, today rejected the bail application of Akshay Shiva Mini @ Patil, an accused in a case involving alleged extortion and assault within the film industry’s set-making business. The bail plea, filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 21(4) of the MCOCA, was denied after the court found sufficient grounds to believe the applicant’s involvement and a potential risk of tampering with evidence.

The case, registered as MCOC Special Case No. 356 of 2020 (originating from C.R. No. 130/19 at Aarey Police Station), implicates Akshay Shiva Mini @ Patil as a member of an alleged organized crime syndicate led by co-accused Shiva.

Grounds for Bail Rejection

Special Judge Karmarkar’s order, dated July 17, 2020, highlighted several key reasons for denying bail:

• Prima Facie Involvement: The court found “reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence” could not be established. Statements from injured witnesses explicitly named the applicant, Akshay Shiva Mini @ Patil, and detailed his active role in the assault, including the use of an iron rod.
• Identification by Witnesses: The applicant was identified during a Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) by witnesses, and their supplementary statements confirmed his aggressive demeanor during the incident.
• CDR/Mobile Records: Police investigations reportedly collected Call Detail Records (CDR) and mobile data indicating the applicant’s presence at the crime scene.
• Criminal Antecedents: The prosecution presented details of other offenses registered against the applicant, where the potential punishment is three years or more, aligning with MCOCA criteria for a member of an organized crime gang.
• Risk of Tampering and Witness Pressure: The court took serious note of affidavits filed by the informant and witnesses, dated December 7 and 8, 2019, which stated that the applicant and co-accused had never misbehaved and were falsely implicated. The court concurred with the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Mr. Solkar’s submission that these affidavits, filed while the accused were in custody, strongly suggested an attempt to pressurize witnesses. The order explicitly stated, “there is every possibility of tampering the evidence and pressurizing the witnesses in case of the release of the applicant on bail.”
• Absconding and Arrest: The applicant was noted to have been absconding and was only arrested on December 6, 2019. His arrest from Nashik District also raised concerns about potential re-offending.
• Sanction Under MCOCA: The necessary sanction under Section 23(2) of the MCOCA was obtained from the Commissioner of Police, confirming the applicability of the stringent law.

Prosecution’s Allegations

The prosecution, represented by Ld. SPP Mr. Solkar, argued that the informant, a film set-making contractor, was targeted by a gang led by co-accused Shiva. This gang allegedly threatened other contractors to abandon their work or pay extortion money. The specific incident involved the applicant and other associates allegedly assaulting the informant and witnesses with an iron rod and fist blows for refusing to comply with their demands.

The prosecution emphasized that co-accused Shiva is the “main person of the group,” with multiple serious offenses registered against him. They maintained that Akshay Shiva Mini @ Patil is an active member of this “organized crime syndicate,” involved in “continuous unlawful activities” for illegal gain.

Applicant’s Defense

Ld. Advocate Ms. Saroj Shinde, representing the applicant, based the bail application on claims of innocence and the contention that no offenses under MCOCA or the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (including Sections 307, 387, 324, 323, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506-II) were made out against her client.

She highlighted that there were cross-complaints regarding the incident and that MCOCA provisions were invoked on September 23, 2019, well after some accused were arrested on July 8, 2019. It was also argued that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had not established the existence of an “Organize Crime Syndicate” or a conspiracy.

Furthermore, Ms. Shinde submitted that the informant and witnesses had filed affidavits stating the applicant’s non-involvement. She also pointed out that the forensic lab report for the alleged weapon (metal rod) had not been filed. The applicant’s medical condition (Asthma) requiring checkups was also cited.

Court’s Observation

The court acknowledged the arguments from both sides, including the written submissions. However, the judge meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the detailed statements of injured witnesses, medical certificates (noting one witness sustained a head injury), and the seizure of three iron rods, one with bloodstains, from the incident spot.

Crucially, the court underscored the gravity of the affidavits filed by the witnesses in favor of the accused, deeming them as indicative of ongoing pressure and a high likelihood of evidence tampering if bail were granted.

The rejection of Akshay Shiva Mini @ Patil’s bail application underscores the stringent nature of the MCOCA and the court’s commitment to preventing potential interference with the judicial process, particularly in cases involving organized crime. The case will now proceed to trial, with the prosecution aiming to prove the existence and activities of the alleged organized crime syndicate.