SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
KISHORE C. SANT, J.
Kiran Madhav Hazare – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No.1076 of 2022
Decided on : 03-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Nitin Sejpal, Advocate h/f Smt. S. G. Sonawane, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P.N. Kutti, Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167 (2) - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Section 12, 23 (1) (a) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 109, 34 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3 and 25 - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 36A(4) - Grant of bail - Attempt to murder - Challenge is raised to an order passed whereby bail applications filed by petitioners for grant of bail are rejected – Held, Court finds that there are endorsements/ signatures by accused to show that notice was properly given in view of judgment in a case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others (supra) - Court finds that, there is proper compliance with procedure as no format of notice is given and mere intimation to accused of filing of application for extension of time is sufficient compliance of notice to petitioners/accused - Court finds that, no case is made out to call for any interference in petition - Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

2. This petition is by accused in jail for their release on bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) r/w Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short “M.C.O.C. Act”). The challenge is raised to an order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar under M.C.O.C. Act whereby, the bail applications filed by the petitioners for grant of bail are rejected. Further challenge is to an order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the said Court for granting extension of period to file charge-sheet.

3. Petition is already withdrawn by petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. Thus, now this Court is considering petition only in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 5.

4. The facts giving rise to the present petition in short are as below :

5. The petitioners are the accused in a crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 109 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR was lodged by one Sachin Thakur on 10.12.2021 alleging that, on 10.12.2021 the informant along with his friend at 12.30 a.m. went to Gate No. 1 of Saibaba temple, Shirdi and from there they went to meet their friend Nilesh Jadhav as he had lost his uncle. From there, after about one and half hour, accused Deepak called Suraj Thakur and asked him to come to a spot near Mathura Hotel. The informant and Suraj went at the spot. At 3.30 a.m. petitioner No. 1 – Kiran Hazare came in a vehicle with accused Tanvir and petitioner No. 5 and other accused persons. There Kiran Hazare called accused - Ravindra Gondkar by keeping the mobile on speaker mode and asked as to what should be done of Suraj Thakur. On that, Ravi Gondkar told to finish Suraj. By cutting the mobile call Kiran asked Akshay Lokhande to take out the ‘material’ on which Akshay Lokhande gave two pistols to Kiran. Kiran took those pistols and fired at Suraj Thakur. Suraj received injuries and started running away. Kiran followed by firing at him. On that, the informant and his friend Nilesh immediately took Suraj Thakur on a scooty to the Hospital and got him admitted. After admitting Suraj to hospital, he thereafter lodged FIR with Shirdi Police Station.

6. All the petitioners were taken in custody and since then they are in custody. Since the offence was registered under M.C.O.C. Act, the prosecution lodged an application for extension of time to file a chargesheet. It is alleged that, when the application was filed, no notice was given. The petitioner No. 1 -Kiran came to be arrested on 13.12.2021 and Petitioner No. 5 – Akshay came to be arrested on 17.12.2021. They were remanded to police custody and thereafter to the judicial custody. The prosecution sent the communication dated 28.02.2022 through Deputy Inspector General of Police, Nashik seeking prior approval under Section 23 (1) (a) of the M.C.O.C. Act. On receiving approval provisions of M.C.O.C. Act came to be applied. By letter dated 09.03.2022 extension was sought for filing charge-sheet to the Court. The S.D.P.O., Shirdi by letter dated 10.03.2022 addressed to the jail authorities requested to inform the accused that the Sections under M.C.O.C. are added and the said information be given to the accused persons and further that they will be taken into custody. By another communication the S.D.P.O. requested jail authorities to hand over custody of the accused persons as the sections of M.C.O.C. are added. The jail authority by letter dated 11.03.2022 informed the S.D.P.O. and handed over the custody of the accused. The accused persons were produced before the Court on 11.03.2022. There the accused prayed for default bail. The learned Court on 11.03.2022 granted extension for further investigation from 11.03.2022 and rejected the prayer of default bail. This is allegedly done without notice to the accused persons. Only their signature was taken on the application for e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top