Mumbai: A Special Judge for MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act) cases, Shri Dinesh E. Kothalikar (C.R.NO.25), has rejected the bail application of Reeta Santoshkumar Singh, who is accused in a case involving extortion, criminal conspiracy, and provisions of the MCOCA Act. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court on July 13, 2021.
Reeta Santoshkumar Singh was arrested on May 28, 2021, in connection with Dadar Railway Police Station C.R. No. 286/2021. She faces serious charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 387 (extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt), 392 (robbery), 195(a) (threatening any person to give false evidence), 506 (criminal intimidation), 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 384 (extortion), 385 (putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion), 212 (harbouring offender), 224 (resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension), and Sections 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5), and 4 of the MCOC Act.
Applicant’s Plea
Reeta Singh’s counsel, Learned Advocate Mr. R.V. Gupta, argued that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He stated that her custodial interrogation was no longer necessary as she has no criminal antecedents and no possibility of committing similar crimes if released on bail. Mr. Gupta also specifically contended that even if the prosecution’s claims were accepted, the case against her would not extend beyond Section 4 of the MCOC Act, which deals with organized crime. He further pleaded for discretion, given that the applicant is a lady and, according to him, was arrested solely because she is the wife of co-accused Santosh.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Case Details
Learned S.P.P. Mr. S.E. Soshte, representing the State, strongly opposed the bail application, submitting a detailed reply. The prosecution’s case is built on a complaint lodged by an informant who operates a mask business. On April 7, 2021, co-accused Santosh (Accused No. 1) allegedly assaulted the informant and demanded “hafta” (protection money) of Rs. 500/- per day, totaling Rs. 3,500/-, for running his business. When the informant refused to pay, Santosh allegedly threatened him and took 1150 masks worth Rs. 7,475/-.
The prosecution claimed that Santosh and his associates have systematically collected “hafta” from hawkers and acquired significant property through these illicit means, creating an environment of fear where victims are reluctant to complain.
During the investigation, the involvement of other accused, including Reeta Singh, was revealed. The prosecution alleges that Reeta Singh and other gang members were involved in a criminal conspiracy and acquired property by extorting money from hawkers. CCTV footage from Langda Bridge supported the informant’s report. Investigations also revealed that co-accused Pankesh and Vikrant threatened the informant to withdraw his complaint against Santosh.
Significantly, during a house search of co-accused Lata, a cash amount of Rs. 92,320/-, gold and silver ornaments, and property purchase papers were seized. Following her arrest, Reeta Singh reportedly attempted to escape from police custody while being brought to the police station.
The prosecution highlighted that Accused No. 1 Santosh used crime proceeds to purchase movable and immovable properties, including depositing Rs. 8.40 lakhs in his brother-in-law’s account and acquiring 10 rooms recorded in the names of Santosh and the present applicant, Reeta Singh. Furthermore, Rs. 1.90 lakhs was allegedly paid through Reeta Singh to office bearers of a union (Vanchit Bahujan Mathadi Transport and General Labour Union) on the instruction of co-accused Sanjay, out of which Rs. 1.27 lakhs from crime proceeds were seized. Other seizures included Rs. 46,500/- from co-accused Sanjay’s brother and a bullet motorcycle and Rs. 16,500/- from co-accused Sameer’s friend, all allegedly belonging to Santosh and derived from crime proceeds.
The prosecution expressed strong apprehension that if Reeta Singh were released on bail, she would dispose of properties and investments standing in her name and pressurize prosecution witnesses, as the investigation is still in progress.
Court’s Decision
Special Judge Kothalikar considered the detailed submissions and the material presented. The court found that the investigation was still at an initial stage. A crucial point influencing the decision was the fact that the court had previously cancelled the bail of co-accused Lata and Vikram, who were directed to surrender but had not yet done so. In this context, the judge opined that releasing Reeta Singh at this stage “certainly would hamper the investigation.”
Despite Reeta Singh’s name not appearing in the initial FIR, the court noted that the investigation revealed movable and immovable properties acquired out of crime proceeds were held in her name. This led the court to conclude that there was “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.”
The judge determined that it would not be just to exercise discretion in favor of the applicant while the investigation was ongoing and before the submission of the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.Code (charge-sheet).
Based on these findings, the court rejected MCOCA Bail Application No. 592 of 2021. The order was signed on July 13, 2021.