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.

JUDGMENT :

(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)

1. By this application, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.397/2020 registered with the non- applicant/police station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 302, 341, 120-B, 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code read with 3/25 and 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act and 135 of the Bombay Police Act and 3 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (the MCOC Act).

2. The applicant is arrested on 28.9.2020 and since then he is in jail.

3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by Police Constable Anil Lande alleging that when he was performing his duties on 26.9.2020, at around 4:15 pm, two unknown persons informed that a car driver is being assaulted by five assailants at Bhole Petrol Pump Square. Accordingly, he rushed to the spot immediately and found a person lying on the road beside Hyundai Verna Car bearing Registration No.MH-49/AS/200 and his clothes were stained with blood. He had sustained various injuries all over the persons. Upon inspection of the car, one pistol magazine was found and name of the deceased disclosed as Balya Binekar. During course of investigation, various incriminating articles like country-made pistols, live cartridges, and chilly powder were seized. Death of the deceased was due to head injury, stab, and multiple injuries over abdomen. On obtaining CCTV Footage, involvement of co-accused revealed. It further revealed during investigation that there was a previous enmity between co-accused Chetan Hajare and the deceased and due that previous dispute, the deceased was eliminated. As far as the applicant is concerned, it revealed during investigation that the co-accused asked the applicant to procure knives and accordingly, he placed an order on Flip-Cart and Amazon and procured knives and handed over to the co-accused which which were used by the co-accused. It further revealed to the investigation agency that co-accused Chetan Hajare is leader of the “Organized Crime Syndicate” against whom 14 offences are registered. The applicant is also associated with the said gang and in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by the applicant and other co-accused, the deceased was eliminated.

4. Heard learned counsel Shri S.P.Bhandarkar for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor Shri D.V.Chauhan for the State.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially, the applicant had filed an application for grant of bail. The said application was rejected without assigning any reasons that how bar under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act is attracted. This court has not considered that the applicant has played a very limited role and rejected the application. While deciding the earlier application, rigor under 21(4) of the MCOC Act was not considered and there is no reasoning as to satisfaction that prima facie case is made out against the applicant. the applicant is behind the bars since last four years. There is a delay in trial. The applicant cannot be put behind the bars for an indefinite period as there is no substantial progress in the trial. No overt act is attributed to the applicant and, therefore, the application of the MCOC Act itself is a doubtful. He invited my attention to definitions of “continuing unlawful activity” and “Organized Crime Syndicate” and submitted that by no stretch of imagination, it reveals from investigation papers that the applicant was a member of the “Organized Crime Syndicate” and rigor under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act is attracted.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on following decisions:

(1) State of Maharashtra vs. Jagan Gagansingh Nepali @ Jagya, reported in 2011(5) SCC 386;

(2) Deepak Madhavrao Mankar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 8036;

(3) Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2015)7 SCC 440;

(4) State of Maharashtra vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal, reported in (2007)4 S