The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on evidence, including telephonic records and witness statements, to determine the involvement of the accused in the crime, leading to the rejection of the bail application.

JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is arrested on 22/3/2018 in C.R. No.10 of 2018 registered with Deccan Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 307, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 3(25) and 3(27) of the Arms Act provisions of Sec. 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act were invoked.

2. The case of prosecution is that since 2012 the deceased was having dispute in respect of transactions of different lands with accused Nitin Dangat and applicant. In 2015 the deceased Deven Shah tried to settle the dispute through Rajesh @ Pandit Agarwal, Ravindra Chorge and associates. Rajesh @ Pandit Agarwal received Rs.75.00 lakh as part payment of his commitment from deceased Deven Shah. Subsequently the deceased had allegedly avoided to pay there maining part payment of Rs.30.00 lakh to Rajesh @ Pandit Agarwal and his associates. Taking advantage of the situation, applicant and Sameer Sadavarte with a view to obtain pecuniary gain, conspired to murder Deven Shah with the help of Sonu Rathod and his gang members. It is further alleged that Sonu Rathod provided country made pistol to Rahul Shivtare. Applicant transferred Rs.2.00 lakh in the account of Rajesh @ Pandit Agarwal. In turn, Rajesh Agarwal had provided pistol and rounds to Ravindra Chorge. Rahul Shivtare and Ravindra Chorge in furtherance of the conspiracy committedmurder of Deven Shah by using country made pistol provided byaccused Sonu Rathod and Rajesh Agarwal. Subsequently theshooters Ravindra Chorge and Rahul Shivtare were kept in lodge at Ujjain. Ravindra Chorge was arrested. He was provided shelter by Abhimanyu Tiwari. Subsequently Rahul Shivtare was arrested. The weapons used in commission of crime were seized at the instance of Ravindra Chorge while memorandum panchanama from the office of co-accused Surendra Pal. Subsequently approval was sought for invoking provisions of MCOC Act, which was granted. The investigation proceeded. The applicant and other accused were arrested. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. The applicant preferred an application for bail before the Special Court under the MCOC Act, the said application was rejected vide order dtd. 28/12/2018. The applicant had preferred another application for bail before the Special Court under the MCOC Act which was rejected by order dtd. 18/2/2020.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. The applicant has no connection with the murder of Deven Shah. The deceased was murdered for different reason which has no connection with the transactions between the deceased and the applicant. The confession of the accused Ravindra Chorge recorded under Sec. 18 of the MCOCA Act makes it clear that, the deceased was killed on account of non payment of commission at the instance of another accused. The assailants were not acting at the instance of the applicant. The transaction between the deceased Deven Shah and the Applicant was settled. The applicant had no motive to kill the deceased. The assailant Ravindra Chorge and other co-accused were inducted by the deceased to settle the dispute with the applicant. Thus it cannot be inferred that, the applicants had utilized the assailants in killing the deceased. Merely on the basis of call records no adverse inference could be drawn against the applicant. The statement of witnesses though refers to the dispute between applicant and the deceased, there is no evidence on record that the applicant had any reason to kill the deceased. The statement of first informant and Vijay Hazare recorded during the course of investigation does not attribute the role to applicant in murder of Deven Shah. The complainant did not suspect the involvement of the applicant in the crime. The applicant has no connection with the crime indicate. There are no criminal antecedent against him. The prosecution had not shown any connection between the applicant and Gang leader Sonu Ra