The main legal point established is the requirement to establish a prima facie nexus between past crimes and the present crime to invoke the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act.

Case Referred:

State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah and Others (2008) 13 SCC 5)

JUDGMENT :

1. Applicant is one of the four accused in Crime No.574 of 2016 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 115 read with Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act, apart from offences under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOC’ for short). By this application, the applicant seeks bail.

2. Heard Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Dabke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the bail application, annexures thereto and the relevant parts of the chargesheet. I have also been taken through the affidavit filed by Mr. Jayant Bajbale, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Virar Division, District: Palghar for opposing the grant of bail. Prosecution case has been described in the proforma of the charge-sheet.

3. Briefly stated, prosecution’s case is that on 16th October, 2016, constable Mohite attached to Virar Police Station received information from one of the informants that four unknown persons had assembled/gathered at and near Ganpati Mandir in Innova Car No.MH-04 EH 7725, with dangerous weapons and they were planning to eliminate a person named ‘Gabari’, a nick name of, Arun Hira Patil, a relative of the local corporator. On this tip-of, Mohite, proceeded to Ganpati Mandir with two constables. In order to conceal their identity, they remained passive in plain clothes and heard the conversation amongst them. Constable, Shankar Shinde, who accompanied Mohite, knew, Girish Nair, one of the four accused and eventually Girish Nair applicant before this Court. Constable Mohite, heard that four persons were outlined the plan as to how Gabari was to be killed. But as it appears one of those accused persons noted that someone was keeping watch on them, all four accused persons filed the spot, leaving behind the car as it is. Though team of constables chased but they could not nab them. Whereafter the team of constables made efforts to open up door of the car but found, it was locked. Constables peeped into the car from the glass window and had noticed dangerous weapons were kept below the seat. Information was passed over to Senior Inspector, Virar Police Station. Eventually, someone informed that car was belonged to Mr. Kini. Surprisingly, Police Constable Shinde, had cell number of Mr. Kini. Thus, Kini was called, he came on the spot with one Kisan Tare to whom Mr. Kini had sold the car. When enquired with Kisan Tare about the car, he informed that since before fifteen days, car was given on rent to Mr. Bhavesh Babubhai Kalaria, but Kisan Tare was having spare key of the Innova Car. Thus, team of constables opened up the car wherein they found the dangerous weapons like, swords, knives, blade of which was approximately 10 inches long, iron rods, chilli powder, mobile hand-set. As such, Innova car and the weapons were seized in presence of the two panchas.

4. It is prosecution case that with objective of gaining pecuniary benefits by use of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means, applicant and his gang conspired to eliminate Gabri. Kishor Mohite constable thus, filed complaint which came to be registered as Crime No.574 of 2016under Section 115 read with Section 302, 120 and 120B of the IPC.

5. Applicant is one of the accused in the said crime. He was apprehended on 7th December, 2016 and after remanding him to police custody till 12th December, 2016, he was remanded to judicial custody. On 6th January, 2017, the approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act was granted whereupon the offences came to be registered under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act.

6. Mr. Apte, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that false case has been fastened against the ap