Bail Denied: Mumbai MCOCA Court Rejects Second Bail Plea of Shiva Rajesh Varma, Citing Prima Facie Involvement

Mumbai, Maharashtra – On December 18, 2021, the Special Judge for MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act) for Greater Bombay, Shri. Dinesh E. Kothalikar, dismissed the second bail application filed by Shiva Rajesh Varma. The application, bearing No. 996/2021, was a successive plea under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Background of the Case

The applicant, Shiva Rajesh Varma, is facing charges in connection with a case registered at the Govandi Police Station. This was his second attempt to secure bail, with the first application (B.A. No. 776/2021) having been rejected by the same court on September 27, 2021.

Arguments Presented

Applicant’s Submissions:

Represented by Advocate Mr. Shatalwar along with Mr. Anil Bansode, the applicant presented a three-fold argument for bail:

The initial report was lodged against an unknown person.
The victim failed to identify the applicant during the Test Identification Parade (TIP).
The applicant was not connected with previous charge sheets filed against the alleged gang leader (accused No. 1).

The defense also cited the Bombay High Court judgment in Vinayak Gopalsa Satpute V/s State of Maharashtra (Criminal Bail application No. 239/2021, decided on October 11, 2021), arguing that the provisions of the MCOC Act were not attracted to the present case.

Prosecution’s Response:

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Mr. S. E. Soshte, representing the State, opposed the bail application. He countered the defense’s arguments by stating:

Regarding the MCOC Act’s applicability, he referred to the court’s previous order (paragraphs 8 and 9 in B.A. No. 776/2021), which had already addressed and rejected similar submissions. The court agreed with the SPP, stating that the applicant could not be allowed to re-agitate an already decided issue.
While conceding that the report was against an unknown person and the informant could not identify the applicant during the TIP, Mr. Soshte emphasized that the court had considered other material available against the applicant during the previous bail hearing. This material, he argued, established a prima facie involvement of the applicant in the crime.
The SPP also rejected the defense’s contention that relying on co-accused statements for implication was impermissible, asserting that the court, when deciding bail, is not required to determine the admissibility of collected investigative material.

Court’s Observations and Order

Special Judge Shri. Dinesh E. Kothalikar, after reviewing the application and hearing arguments, affirmed the prosecution’s stand. The court reiterated its previous finding that there was prima facie material available on record showing the applicant’s involvement in the crime. The judge specifically stated that the mere fact of the informant not identifying the applicant would not be sufficient to conclude that the applicant was not guilty.

The court also dismissed the argument regarding the inadmissibility of co-accused statements at the bail stage, stating that the court is not required to assess admissibility at that point.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the material on record was sufficient to indicate the accused’s guilt under the MCOC Act, which is a primary requirement for deciding bail applications under the stringent provisions of the Act.

Considering these factors, the court ruled that the application lacked merit and consequently dismissed Bail Application No. 996/2021. The record and proceedings are to be kept with Special Case No. 1511/21.