The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient evidence to establish guilt, the interpretation of bail requirements under MCOCA, and the consideration of the appellant's criminal history in the context of the bail application.

JUDGMENT

VINAY JOSHI, J. - Considering the controversy involved in the matter, and by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, Criminal Appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Admit.

2. This is an appeal in terms of Sec. 14-A[2] of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act" for short), raising a challenge to the order dtd. 3/9/2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal below Exh.3 in Special Case No.7/2022, rejecting regular bail.

3. The appellant - Akshay came to be arrested by the police of Yavatmal Police Station, District Yavatmal in connection with Crime No.543/2021 for the offence punishable under Ss. 109, 120-B, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 3[2][v] of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act" for short), and Ss. 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act. Later on the provisions of Sec. 3[1][ii], 3[2], 3[4] of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the MCOCA" for short) have been invoked. The appellant had applied for regular bail, however, it was turned down by the Sessions Court vide impugned order. Since the provisions of the Atrocities Act have been invoked, this is an appeal under Sec. 14 A[2] of the Atrocities Act, in substance claiming release on bail.

4. The aforesaid crime was registered at the instance of report dtd. 23/6/2021 lodged by one Smt.Abha Karan Paropate, alleging that the appellant along with co-accused hatched conspiracy, which resulted into committing murder of her husband Karan on 23/6/2021. Informant is real sister of the appellant/accused. The informant stated that she had performed inter-caste marriage with the deceased Karan on 11/4/2021, which was disliked by her brother - appellant/Akshay. Later on both were indulging into business of sand transportation. Several offences were registered against the appellant. On 23/6/2021 around 8.45 p.m. the informant was telephonically communicated that her husband Karan has been assaulted near State Bank Chowk. She tried to contact deceased Karan, but, could not. She was informed by one Laptap that her husband has been assaulted by Baghira, Shubham and Dhiraj @ Brand. She rushed to the government hospital along with Latpat and found her husband lying dead with multiple injuries.

5. It is informants' case that though the appellant was detained at Aurangabad Central Prison under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootlegers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA) however, he has conspired with his fellow colleagues, who in turn executed the plan of eliminating Karan. She stated that while the appellant was in Aurangabad Central Prison, some of the co-accused met him. During said meeting the co-accused updated the appellant that in his absence deceased Karan was establishing supremacy in the sand extraction business, therefore, she alleged that the appellant had sufficient motive for eliminating the deceased. By expressing strong suspicion against the appellant of hatching conspiracy, she has lodged the report against the appellant and assailants.

6. The State has put strong resistance to this appeal by filing reply-affidavit of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal dtd. 24/11/2022. Besides reiterating the contents of first information report, it is stated that the appellant has a long criminal history. Several offences have been registered against him. The appellant was also earlier involved in the offence under MCOCA. The appellant has been charged for the serious offence of murder, which attracts capital punishment.

7. It is stated that during investigation it transpired that, while the appellant was in jail, co-accused met him with whom he conspired to kill t