Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S. Karnik, J.
Vivek Chandrakant Manjrekar - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Interim Application No. 3212/2022
Decided On : 24-01-2023
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - IPC Sections: 307, 326, 324, 504, 506(ii), 120-B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 188, 269; Arms Act Sec. 4(25); Maharashtra Police Act Sec. 37(1), 135; National Disaster Management Act Sec. 51(b); MCOC Act Ss. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) - The court discussed the provisions of the IPC and the MCOC Act, emphasizing the definitions of organized crime and continuing unlawful activity. The MCOC Act was applied due to the applicant's alleged involvement in a conspiracy to forcibly take possession of property, supported by confessions and corroborative evidence. The court highlighted the necessity of stringent measures against organized crime, affirming the application of the MCOC Act despite the applicant's claims of non-involvement.
Fact of the Case:
Vivek Chandrakant Manjrekar sought bail for charges related to organized crime and violent offenses stemming from a property dispute. The complainant alleged that he and his associates were assaulted by a group claiming ownership of the property, leading to the registration of multiple offenses against the accused, including the applicant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant was implicated in a conspiracy involving organized crime, supported by confessions and evidence indicating his participation in a syndicate aimed at unlawfully taking possession of the property. The court noted the serious nature of the charges and the organized crime context.
Issues: Whether the applicant's involvement in the alleged organized crime justified the application of the MCOC Act and the denial of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the MCOC Act applies to individuals involved in organized crime, even if only one charge-sheet is filed against them, provided there is a nexus with the organized crime syndicate. The definitions of organized crime and continuing unlawful activity under the MCOC Act were pivotal in determining the applicant's culpability.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail application, concluding that the applicant's involvement with the organized crime syndicate warranted the application of the MCOC Act, and thus, he was not entitled to bail.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. My attention is invited to the order dated January 2, 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Chandrakant Manjrekar vs. The State of Maharashtra[ SLP (Crl.) No.12166/2022]. The order reads thus:- Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we see no reason to intervene at this juncture. However, taking note that the bail application filed by the petitioner has been repeatedly adjourned by the High Court and we have been told that it is now listed on 24/1/2023, we request the High Court to consider and dispose of the bail application in accordance with law on the said date since as already noted the application has been pending for quite some time. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of. Pending application (s) shall stand disposed of."
2. Accordingly, I have taken up Criminal Bail Application No.868/2022 for consideration and disposal. The other bail applications to stand de-tagged as request for adjournment is made in those matters.
3. The applicant-Vivek Chandrakant Manjrekar seeks bail in respect of C.R.No.63/2021 registered with DCB-CID, UnitXI for the offences punishable under Ss. 307, 326, 324, 504, 506(ii), 120-B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 188, 269 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'IPC' for short) read with Sec. 4(25) of the Arms Act read with Sec. 37(1), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act read with Sec. 51(b) of the National Disaster Management Act read with Ss. 3(1) (ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereafter 'MCOC Act' for short) against 19 known accused and 5 unknown accused persons. Initially the First Information Report (FIR) was registered with MHB Police Station, Mumbai, vide C.R.No.599/2021. Thereafter, the investigation came to be transferred to DCB-CID and the present FIR bearing No.63/2021 came to be registered.
4. The prosecution case in brief is as under:- The complainant is Divyesh Rajendra Desai whose statement was recorded on July 18, 2021 (page 63 of the paper-book). The dispute is in respect of the plot No.301, which is situated at Dahisar (W), Mumbai. The plot was originally owned by one Smt. Deubai Thakur. The same was purchased by Shri Taukir Khan in the year 1983 by a registered agreement. Since then the property is in possession of the Taukir Khan. In the year 1990, name of Smt. Kashibai Patil, who happened to be the sister of original owner Deubai Thakur along with her legal heirs mutated their names in the mutation entries and since then their names are reflected in the 7/12 extract. On a challenge by Taukir Khan, the Competent Authority set aside the mutation entries which were in favour of Kashibai Patil. In 2006, Kashibai Patil filed a suit in this Court which was dismissed in 2016. In July 2021, the complainant along with Taukir Khan, established a construction company by name 'Solaris' with an intention to construct a school on the said plot. Kashibai and her legal heirs, despite there having no title, sold the said plot to one Mukesh Bhatia (one of the accused) of 'Icon Developers ' and Arun Upadhyay (also one of the accused) of 'Shreeji Sharan Developers'. On July 8, 2021, when the complainant went to visit his plot, Arun Upadhyay and Mukesh Bhatia who happened to be physically present on the plot, informed the complainant that they had purchased the said property from Kashibai and her legal heirs. They tried to put up their board, displaying their name as owners and since then, the dispute is going on between the parties.
5. It is the case of the complainant that on July 18, 2021, the complainant along with his father, two advocates and other associates visited the said plot, when about 15 to 20 persons came there and tried to remove the board of the complainant on the property and asked the complainant and his associates to leave the spot saying that the property belongs to Mukesh Bhatia and Arun Upadhyay. When the complainant and his associates objected to that, the accused threatened to kill the
The court affirmed that involvement in an organized crime syndicate justifies stringent bail denials, emphasized by the presence of multiple charges and confessions from co-accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to strictly construe the provisions of MCOCA, establish the mens rea, and consider the length of the period spent in custody and the unlik....
The court ruled that the applicant's involvement in organized crime and conspiracy to commit murder, supported by substantial evidence, justified the rejection of bail under the MCOC Act.
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.
The court's decision emphasized the interpretation of MCOCA provisions and the satisfaction of bail conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA.
The M.C.O.C. Act can be applied to individuals as members of an organized crime syndicate based on their involvement in organized crime, regardless of their individual charge history.
Unlawful activity - If a person may or may not have any direct role to play as regards commission of an organized crime, if a nexus either with an accused who is a member of an “organized crime syndi....
(1) Offence under MCOCA must comprise continuing unlawful activity relating to organized crime undertaken by an individual singly or jointly, either as a member of organized crime syndicate or on beh....
(1) Commission of organised crime – There should be agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire doing of an illegal act by illegal means and which by itself may not be illegal.(2) In a crim....
Insufficient prima facie evidence to link the applicant to organized crime syndicate warrants bail under MCOCA's stringent conditions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
