Mumbai, Maharashtra – An MCOCA Special Judge in Greater Mumbai has granted bail to Parmanand Hansraj Thakkar, a Pune-based businessman, who was accused of involvement in an alleged extortion case linked to the organized crime syndicate headed by Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje, also known as Chhota Rajan.
Special Judge A.T. Wankhede (C.R. No. 57), presiding over the Exclusive Special Court for cases against Chhota Rajan and others, issued the order on April 1, 2021, in Bail Application (MCOC) No. 161 of 2021. Thakkar was facing charges under Sections 452, 387, 465, 468, 471, 120(B), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOC Act).
Background of the Case
The case stems from Crime No. 312 of 2015, registered with Panvel Police Station, Navi Mumbai, based on a report by informant Nandu Vajekar. The investigation, later taken over by the Anti Extortion Cell, Navi Mumbai, led to the invocation of the MCOC Act provisions due to the alleged involvement of Chhota Rajan’s syndicate. A charge-sheet was filed against accused Suresh Shamrao Shinde and others, with Parmanand Hansraj Thakkar and one Nitin Ramrao Avaghade being shown as wanted.
The trial against Suresh Shamrao Shinde and others (Special Case No. 04 of 2018 along with 03 of 2019) concluded on January 4, 2021. While the MCOCA charges (Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)) against the prime accused were not proven, they were convicted for offenses punishable under Sections 385, 120(B), and 34 of the IPC.
Parmanand Hansraj Thakkar was arrested by the CBI on February 2, 2021, in connection with the same offense.
Applicant’s Arguments for Bail
Ld. Advocate Mr. Hulyalkar, representing Thakkar, argued that his client had been falsely implicated. He contended that there was no substantive evidence connecting Thakkar to the alleged extortion threats or aiding and abetting co-accused. He emphasized that the primary accused were only convicted of bailable offenses (Sections 385, 120(B), 34 of IPC) and were acquitted of the MCOC Act charges.
Mr. Hulyalkar relied on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments (specifically Topandas Vs. the State of Bombay and Istiyak Khan Iqubal Khan Vs. the State of Maharashtra), arguing that if co-conspirators are acquitted of conspiracy charges, a single person cannot be convicted for that offense. He claimed that the MCOC Act approval was flawed as it didn’t satisfy conditions for organized crime or continuing unlawful activity.
He further stated that Thakkar had no connection or communication with the prime accused, had no criminal antecedents, and the allegations against him were “vague, bald and baseless.” He assured the court that his client had deep roots in society, would not abscond or tamper with witnesses, and was ready to abide by any conditions. He highlighted that Thakkar was not even aware of this case and was present in other pending court matters, indicating police had not made efforts to find him earlier.
Prosecution’s Opposition
SPP Mr. Gharat, representing the CBI, opposed the bail, asserting sufficient oral and electronic evidence (CCTV footage, call recordings of convicted accused) to establish that threats were given to the informant “at the behest of the applicant/accused.” The prosecution maintained that Thakkar was absconding and was arrested by the CBI on February 2, 2019 (the order states 02.02.2021 but previously states arrested by CBI on 02.02.2019, this is a slight discrepancy in the provided text; the court order then says arrested by CBI on 02.02.2021). They argued that Thakkar had approached Chhota Rajan, the head of an organized crime syndicate, making his judicial custody essential for further investigation.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Special Judge A.T. Wankhede meticulously reviewed the arguments and documents.
On the MCOCA charges: The court noted the civil dispute between Thakkar and the informant Nandu Vajekar regarding commission for a property deal. It observed that Thakkar had pursued the matter through a civil suit and an appeal in the High Court for money recovery. However, the court also acknowledged that “suddenly, the accused Suresh Shamrao Shinde and others stepped into this dispute.” The informant’s statements specifically alleged that an extortion amount of Rs. 25 Crores was demanded “for and at the behest of the applicant/accused.”
The court stated, “Prima-facie, there is reason to believe that the applicant/accused approached for the recovery of his commission amount to the organized crime syndicate headed by accused Chhota Rajan.” It conceded that the conviction of Suresh Shinde and others was only for IPC offenses (extortion and conspiracy) because the punishment for Section 385 IPC is less than two years, meaning “the said activity could not be termed as continuing unlawful activity” for the purpose of MCOCA.
However, the judge clarified that the prosecution did prove the invocation of MCOCA provisions in the previous case against the arrested accused. The court asserted that “the statement of the witnesses, CDR, CCTV footage, transcript of the conversation prima-facie demonstrate that the applicant/accused approached the organized crime syndicate for the recovery of his commission amount. This act of the applicant/accused falls within the ambit of section 3(2) of the MCOC Act.” Thus, the court disagreed with the defense that MCOCA charges could not be made out against Thakkar.
On the aspect of bail: Despite the MCOCA charges prima facie applying, the court considered that the trial of the co-accused had concluded, albeit with convictions only for IPC offenses. Crucially, the court noted that the CBI did not seek police custody of Thakkar after his arrest on February 2, 2021. This indicated that his custodial interrogation was not deemed necessary.
The court addressed the prosecution’s concern about abscondence, stating that “the abscondance of the accused or issuance of proclamation against him cannot be a ground for rejection of his bail.” It also pointed out that there was no material to suggest Thakkar had engaged in any other criminal activity while absconding. Furthermore, there were no other criminal antecedents against him apart from this case.
The judge concluded that “no purpose would be served to keep the applicant/accused behind the bar for indefinite period, as there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded in near future.” The court determined that stringent conditions could address the prosecution’s apprehension of tampering with witnesses or flight risk.
Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions
Accordingly, the court allowed the bail application, ordering Parmanand Hansraj Thakkar’s release on a Personal Bond and Surety Bond of ₹50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties of the like amount, subject to the following strict conditions:
- Cooperation with CBI: He must cooperate with the investigating agency and attend the CBI office as and when called for, until the final disposal of the case, with written intimation.
- No Tampering: He shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person/prosecution witness, or tamper with prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- Reporting to Police Station: He must attend Panvel Police Station every Saturday between 11:00 AM to 05:00 PM for a period of three months after his release on bail.
- Travel Restriction: He shall not leave Mumbai/Pune without prior permission of the Investigating Officer of CBI.
- Residence Change Intimation: He shall not change his residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer.
- Court Presence: He must remain present before the court as and when called and ensure his Advocate duly represents him on every date.
- Breach of Conditions: Breach of any of these conditions will result in the cancellation of his bail.
The bail application was disposed of accordingly.