Indira Vitthal Pujari Mother of Gangster Prasad Pujari Denied Bail in MCOCA Extortion Case

Mumbai, July 15, 2020 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Indira Vitthal Pujari, the 62-year-old mother of absconding gangster Prasad Pujari, in a case involving alleged extortion and provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999. The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge D.S. Deshmukh (C.R. No. 21) in Bail Application No. 811 of 2020.

Indira Pujari was seeking bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime Branch Unit-7, Mumbai, CR No. 30/2020, which has invoked Sections 387 (putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 120(b) (criminal conspiracy) read with 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) of the MCOCA Act.

The Prosecution’s Case

According to the prosecution, the informant, a construction businessman, received an international call on June 22, 2018, at around 9:14 PM, from gangster Prasad Pujari. The caller allegedly threatened, stating: “Hi, I’m Prasad Pujari. Last time talk to you, you said work not started now you’re work going on ajit take this seriously talk do payment or stop, don’t invite trouble. I want 1 cr or I shoot, you free to complain police even I am waiting for targets thanks take care.”

The informant received repeated threat calls demanding ransom of Rs. 1 crore. On January 30, 2020, co-accused Sunil Angane allegedly approached the complainant, inquiring about his construction and reminding him of Prasad Pujari’s threat calls. Following this, the informant lodged a complaint at Vikhroli Police Station (CR No. 42/2020), which was subsequently transferred to Crime Branch Unit-7 (CR No. 30/2020).

During the investigation, it was revealed that the applicant, Indira Vitthal Pujari, is the mother of the absconding accused Prasad Pujari. Crucially, she is alleged to have deposited Rs. 25,000/- into the bank account of arrested co-accused Sunil Angane. The prosecution contended that this act signifies her involvement in an organized crime syndicate run by Prasad Pujari, whose modus operandi involves demanding ransom through threat calls. Consequently, MCOCA provisions were applied to the case.

Applicant’s Defense and Court’s Analysis

Learned Advocate Mr. Dinesh Kadam, representing the applicant, argued that the MCOCA provisions were not applicable to his client, asserting that she was not a member of an organized crime syndicate. He stated that while she might have traveled abroad two to three times to meet her son, this alone did not make her a syndicate member. Mr. Kadam cited the case of Surjitsingh Bhagatsingh Gambhir V/s. The State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 913/2019 decided on 13.09.2019) in support of his arguments.

However, learned SPP Mr. Soshte for the State strongly opposed the bail, maintaining that MCOCA provisions were rightly applied due to the nature of the offense and the accused’s connection to the syndicate.

Judge Deshmukh, after reviewing the application and the Investigating Officer’s “say” (reply), highlighted several points from the investigation papers:

Indira Pujari is admittedly the mother of Prasad Pujari, the alleged head of the syndicate.
She traveled abroad multiple times to meet her son.
The co-accused Sunil Angane approached the complainant, reminding him of the threats and ransom demand from Prasad Pujari.
Crucially, Indira Pujari transferred Rs. 25,000/- to Sunil Angane’s account. The court interpreted this as the transfer of funds “on the say of absconding accused Prasad Pujari… for the work of ransom.”

Based on these findings, the court concluded that there was an “Organised Crime syndicate run by absconding accused Prasad Pujari and applicant is a member of organized crime syndicate.” The judge referred to the well-settled principle in Govind Sakharam Ubhe V/s. State of Maharashtra (2009 ALL MR Cri.1903), which establishes that the criteria for offenses under MCOCA are against the organized crime syndicate as a whole, not just individual members.

Therefore, the court found it difficult to conclude that the applicant was prima facie not guilty of the offenses, as required under Section 21(4) of the MCOCA Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail.

Order:

Bail Application No. 811/2020 is rejected.

The order was dictated, typed, and signed on July 15, 2020. A certified true copy was uploaded on July 29, 2020.