Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR, J.
Amit Madhukar Bhogle - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Bail Application No. 5094 of 2024
Decided On : 29-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sana Raees Khan, Sumit Sharma, Vidya Lohamate, Neha Balani, Dipti Jadhav, Divya Parab
For the Respondents: Veera Shinde, Chandrakant Jadhav, Rajashree Balgi

The court held that the evidence presented indicates substantial involvement of the applicant in a murder conspiracy linked to organized crime, justifying denial of bail under MCOCA.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 326, 342, 144, 148, 149, 506, 120-B - Maharashtra Police Act - Sections 37(1)(a), 135 - Arms Act - Sections 3, 4, 25 - Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 - Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) - Regular bail application in serious charges including conspiracy and organized crime - Prosecution claims applicant as principal conspirator involved in planning and executing murder - Applicant's claims of insufficient evidence and delays in invoking MCOCA rejected - Substantial material presented supports presence of applicant with conspirators before and after crime - Elements of organized crime established - Application for bail denied. (Paras 1-64)

Facts of the case:
The applicant seeks bail connected to a murder case where he is alleged to be a leader in an organized crime syndicate. He was not initially named in the charge-sheet, but later implicated as Accused No.10 following supplementary charges. The prosecution provides evidence including CCTV footage, witness statements, and call records indicating his involvement in the conspiracy.

Findings of Court:
The Court finds sufficient prima facie evidence showing the applicant’s integral role in the crime and established prior criminal associations.

Issues: The main issues pertain to the adequacy of evidence linking the applicant to conspiracy and the validity of MCOCA's invocation.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld that the material demonstrated significant involvement of the applicant in planned organized crime and addressed the framework for bail under MCOCA, emphasizing the accumulated evidence justifying denial of bail.

Result: Application stands rejected.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the murder case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. defendant's arguments against mcoca (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19)
3. prosecution's reliance on evidence (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
4. court's analysis of the evidence (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. analysis of defendant's involvement (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. discussion on co-accused statements (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
7. importance of telecommunication evidence (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
8. legal standards for mcoca invocation (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
9. judicial response to bail application (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
10. final decision against bail application (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
11. conclusion and order of the court (Para 63 , 64 , 65)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By the present application filed under Section 4 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is seeking his release on regular bail in connection with Crime Register No. 89 of 2021 registered with D.C.B./C.I.D. Unit 7, Mumbai. The offences alleged against the applicant are of a serious nature and are punishable under Sections 3 02 , 326, 342, 144, 148, 149, 506 and 120-B read with Section 3 4 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. In addition, offences under Sections 3 7(1)(a) and 135 of the MAHARASHTRA POLICE ACT , Sections 3 , 4 and 25 of the ARMS ACT , and Sections 3 (1)(i), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “MCOCA”) have also been invoked against them.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3rd October 2021, after winding up his daily work, the first informant had gone to the Chinese eatery run by the deceased, namely, Suraj Mehra @ Nepali, around 7:30 p.m. The said Suraj Mehra @ Nepali, along with the complainant and two other friends, continued with the hotel work till about 10:00 p.m., and thereafter, they collectively cleaned and closed the hotel by around 1:00 a.m. on 4th October 2021.

3. It is alleged that at about 12:30 a.m., a phone call was received at the hotel from one Rahul @ Rahulya Vilas Jadhav, who wanted to place a food order. However, since the kitchen was closed, the friend of the deceased who received the call declined the order. Around 2:00 a.m., after finalizing the day’s accounts, the deceased Suraj Mehra @ Nepali, the complainant, and two other friends started for their respective homes. One of the friends parted ways and went home from the parking area of one Sachin Dhananjay Kulkarni @ Chingya, while the complainant and the deceased continued to walk towards their homes.

4. The prosecution further alleges that at approximately 2:20 a.m., near Komal Yadav Chawl, the complainant and the deceased were intercepted by accused Sachin Dhananjay Kulkarni @ Chingya and Piyush Priyadarshan Naik. Suddenly, accused Umesh Bharat Kadam came running towards the deceased with a sword in hand and attempted to assault him. While the complainant and the deceased tried to defend themselves, they were allegedly attacked further by accused Sushil @ Sada @ Jayaram Sadanand Sawant and Rahul @ Rahulya Jadhav using sharp-edged weapons such as choppers.

5. The prosecution version continues that the said Sushil @ Sada allegedly dragged the complainant towards the end of the lane and asked him to leave the spot. Fearing for his life, the complainant moved away, but turned around to look for the deceased. He allegedly saw that the deceased was being attacked by the accused persons. In an attempt to escape, the deceased reached near Ashtavinayak Dairy, but fell down. Seizing the opportunity, Umesh Bharat Kadam is alleged to have delivered a fatal blow with a sword on the deceased’s abdomen, and the other accused persons continued to assault him with swords and choppers.

6. The complainant states that he immediately called one of their common friends for help. Meanwhile, the police arrived at the scene. The injured Suraj Mehra @ Nepal