1

ba.759.2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) 759 OF 2020

(Kunal s/o.Kundan Dongre..vs.. State, thr Police Station, Jaripaka, Nagpur)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,

appearances, Court'

s orders of directions

Court'

s or Judge'

s orders.

and Registrar’s Orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. C.B. Barve, counsel for applicant.

Mr. M.K. Pathan, APP for non-applicant/State.

CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATE:19.07.2021.

Hearing was conducted through video conferencing

and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and

visual quality was proper.

Heard.

2.

The applicant is seeking bail under section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with

Crime 104/2018, registered with Police Station, Jaripatka,

Nagpur, initially for offence punishable under section 394 of

Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).

3.

During the course of investigation, the applicant

came to be arrested on 13.2.2018, subsequently provisions

of sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of

Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act”) are invoked.

4.

The crime is registered on the basis of complaint

2

ba.759.2020

dated 27.1.2018 lodged by Mr. Mohammad. The gist of the

complaint is in the night intervening 27.1.2018 and

28.1.2018, four unidentified persons, with faces covered,

assaulted him, inflicted stab injury on the waist and relieved

him of the mobile and Rs. 4500/-.

5.

Considering that the provisions of MCOC Act are

invoked, it would impermissible to grant bail unless this

Court is in a position to record a finding that there are

reasonable grounds to believe in the innocence of the

applicant.

6.

Faced with this obstacle, the learned counsel

Mr. C.B. Barve would argue that the provisions of the MCOC

Act are not applicable.

7.

The applicant has faced / is facing as many as

ten offences. Mr. C.B. Barve is quick to point out that at

least, six offences were allegedly committed, one after the

other, on the same day which includes the present offence

and earlier only four crimes are registered. Mr. C.B. Barve

fairly does not dispute that in some crimes, the applicant is

arraigned as accused alongwith alleged gang leader of the

3

ba.759.2020

organized crime syndicate.

8.

The prosecution is relying on the confession

recorded under section 18 of the MCOC Act. While the

applicant has not admitted to be the actual assailant or

person who stabbed the various victims involved in the

chain of crimes unleashed by the gang on the fateful night,

the applicant does admits that he was accompanying the

co-accused. While the credibility of the confession under

section 18 will have to be addressed by the trial Court on

the basis of evidence adduced, at this stage, it cannot be

said that the accused has made out a case for grant of bail.

Ultimately, while the Court is not expected to record a

finding of innocence, on broad probabilities, the Court must

be satisfied of the existence of substantial probable cause to

believe in the innocence of the accused. In the teeth of the

confession under section 18, such a finding cannot be

recorded.

9.

The application is dismissed.

Judge

Belkhede