..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1141 OF 2008 Shri Salim Iqbal Kureshi @ Salim Fruit. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Counsel a/w. Mr.Meghashyam Kocharekar, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 25th August, 2008. DATED : 25th August, 2008. DATED : 25th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.84 of 2001 of DCB, CID, Unit-I, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 387, 34 r/w. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of MCOC Act, 1999. 3. The applicant was arrested on 21st November, 2006. It is the prosecution case that the applicant is closely related to Chota Shakil who is a dreaded gangster. It is further ..(2).. prosecution case that at the behest of Chota Shakil the applicant used to make extortion calls to persons in Mumbai. He also sent persons to collect the extortion money. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that witness Rahul received extortion calls hence he informed the police. Trap came to be arranged and co-accused Afjal and one Mohammed came to be apprehended. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that Mohammed and Afjal have been released on bail, hence, the applicant who has played a lesser role be released on the ground of parity. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that at the time when Afjal and Mohammed were granted bail, the offence was only under Section 384 of IPC and later on the provisions of MCOC Act came to be applied. Moreover, as far as the present applicant is concerned, his own confessional statement has been recorded and confessional statements of two co-accused have also been recorded wherein they have implicated the present applicant. As far as co-accused Afjal and Mohammed are concerned, they had only gone to collect the money. At that time, ..(3).. provisions of MCOC had not been applied and the additional material which is found in the case of the present applicant i.e. his own confessional statement and that of two co-accused is not found in respect of Afjal and Mohammed. 5. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the confessional statement of the applicant is not free from doubt. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the statement of the applicant recorded on 25th December, 2006 and another statement of the applicant recorded on 27th December, 2006. In the statement recorded on 25th December, 2006, it is pointed out that the signatures of the applicant thereon are dated 27.12.2006. My attention is also drawn to the statement of the applicant dated 27.12.2006 wherein he has stated that on 25.12.2006 he was pressurised to sign some documents and he put his name on some papers. As far as the documents dated 25.12.2006 are concerned, on which the date 27.12.2006 appears, it is seen that it is not the confessional statement of the applicant, but, it is only a previous statement wherein preliminary ..(4).. questions are put to the accused. As far as the aspect of discrepancy in date is concerned, it can be best gone into at the time of trial. Besides the confessional statement of the applicant, the statements of co-accused also implicates the applicant. Moreover, the statement of other witnesses also show that the applicant used to make extortion calls to persons in Mumbai. The material on record clearly implicates the applicant. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is guilty of the offence. Hence, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)