Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6830
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J
GOPAL RADHEYSHAM YADAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
BA/3778/2024
The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and found insufficient evidence to invoke the MCOC Act against the applicant, leading to the granting of bail.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 325, 397, 341, read with Section 34 - Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Sections 135 and 37(1)(3) - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 1 and 3 - Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act - Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) - Bail Application - Applicant seeks bail after being in custody for over 6 years. The prosecution's case relies on conflicting statements from the complainant and the absence of a recovered weapon from the applicant. The court finds that the prosecution has not established a clear nexus to invoke the MCOC Act against the applicant. (Para 18)
(B) The court emphasized the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, noting that no charges have been framed against the applicant despite lengthy incarceration. (Paras 8, 18)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, Gopal Radheshyam Yadav, is accused of attempting to snatch a handbag and causing injury during the incident on 02.08.2018. He has been in custody since 03.08.2018. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantial evidence to justify the invocation of the MCOC Act against the applicant and noted the lengthy period of custody without trial. (Para 18)
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of evidence to invoke the MCOC Act and the justification for the applicant's prolonged detention without trial. (Paras 6, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case for invoking the MCOC Act against the applicant, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the absence of recovered weapons linking the applicant to the crime. (Para 18)
Result: Bail Application allowed; the applicant is released on bail with conditions. (Para 20)
ORAL JUDGEMENT
:
1. Heard Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Phad, learned APP for Respondent - State of Maharashtra.
2. This Criminal Bail Application is filed by Applicant who is arraigned as Accused No.2. His name is Gopal Radheshyam Yadav. Accused No.1 is Mahendra Yadav whereas Accused No.3 is Vikas Mahendra Singh. Accused No.2 seeks enlargement on bail in Crime No.I-131 of 2018 of Tilak Nagar Police Station, Dombivli registered on 03.08.2011 under Sections 307, 325, 397 , 341 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’), Section 135 and 37(1)(3) of Bombay Police Act , 1951, Sections 1 and 3 of the Arms Act , 1959 and Section 3(1)(ii) , 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (for short ‘MCOC Act’).
3. The Applicant has been apprehended and arrested on 03.08.2018 and has been in custody for the past 6 years 4 months and 18 days. The incident is of 02.08.2018 when the First Informant – Pradeep Jain alongwith his associate Mr. Kesar Singh Rajput who was riding the scooter were accosted at about 10:45 p.m. by Accused Nos.2 and 3 when they reached home. It is prosecution case that both above Accused tried to snatch the handbag carried by First Informant which contained key of his jwellery shop on the assumption that it contained valuables. Statement of First Informant is at page No.73 which states that the incident occurred between 10:30 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on 02.08.2018. This Statement was recorded at about 04:00 a.m. on 03.08.2018. Supplementary statement of First Informant was recorded on 04.08.2018. Both these statements are appended at page Nos.73 and 75 of Bail Application.
4. In the first statement, First Informant attributed the appearance of the present Applicant as having worn blue t-shirt and white jeans and being the person who fired from the weapon on him at the time of incident. However, in the supplementary statement, the First Informant – Complainant has stated that Accused No.3 – Vikas Singh fired at him from the weapon and in so far present Applicant Accused No.2 – Gopal Radheshyam Yadav is concerned, he injured him with the knuckle fighter on his head. At the outset, there is prima facie dichotomy in the twin statements of Complainant which is noticed. Admittedly, both Accused Nos.2 and 3 were apprehended by two policemen and passers-by on the Complainant and his manager - Kesar Singh Rajput raising an alarm. On search before panch witnesses states knuckle metal fighter was recovered from Accused No.3 and one gupti (traditional small swordstick) was recovered from Accused No.2 i.e. present Applicant. The alleged weapon i.e. gun was admittedly not recovered from Accused No.2. Accused No.1 was arrested much subsequently after almost three weeks.
5. Mr. Pandey would draw my attention to the crime registered against Accused No.1 vide No.I-200 of 2018 under Sections 392 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and would submit that this First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was registered on 29.11.2018 with the Kapurbawdi Police Station, Thane wherein the present Applicant is arraigned as Accused but would contend that the said offence dates back to 27.07.2018 and predates the offence in the present case on 02.08.2018. While drawing my attention to the date of incident in the present offence which is on 02.08.2018, he would submit that registration of offence on 29.11.2018 against Accused No.1 cannot termed to be predicate offence for indicting the present Applicant on the premise of having nexus or being an accomplice of Accused No.1 who is also indicted in several other crimes. He would submit that it is only with the intention of bringing the charge in the present offence under the MCOC Act that registration of the predicate offence is shown by prosecution, but admittedly the FIR therein has been registered on 29.11.2018 and therefore applicability of provisions of MCOC Act would not and should not be held applicable against the present Applicant. Prima fa
