1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2914 OF 2009 Shri Deepak Laxman Patil )..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent ---- Mr. A.P.Mundargi Sr. Advocate i/by Amol Patankar for the applicant. Smt. M. H. Mhatre APP for the State. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 26 th April, 2010 PC 1 This is an application for grant of regular bail. The applicant is shown as an accused no.7 in C.R.No.I-415/2006 registered by the Turbhe police station for alleged offences under Sections 452, 387, 307 read with 34 of IPC, under Sections 3, 25, 27 & 35 of Arms Act and Section 3(1) (II) read with 3(2) & (4) of MCOC Act. In short the prosecution case is that in order to extort money from a firm of builder known as Bhoomiraj Construction, at the behest of gang leader by name Ravi Pujari, the present applicant-Deepak Patil, Rohan, Hemant, Ravindra Ghare and Sadiq Bangali went to the office of the said firm. Of the 5 persons, the present applicant-Deepak Patil, Rohan and Hemant stood outside, whereas accused no.5 and accused no.6 went into the premises. Accused no.5 fired from his revolver and then all the 5 persons fled from the place after leaving chit and contact number of the gang leader Ravi Pujari. It is an admitted position that the present applicant was not carrying any weapon. It is also an admitted position that other persons who were standing outside the office, have been granted bail. In so far as material in the present 2 offence against the present applicant is concerned, the same rest upon a confession of the co-accused i.e accused no.4 Ravindra. It is true that under Section 18 of the MCOC Act, confession of the co-accused is a substantive piece of evidence but the Supreme Court has held that it is not a substantial evidence and the Court would look for corroboration. In the present case there is no corroboration. The police have recorded the statement of another co-accused by name Sadiq Bangali who was a person who actually fired. Sadiq Bangali does not talk about any other person standing outside the premises. APP pointed out that in the memorandum statement of Sadiq Bangali, he has involved the present applicant. That statement is not before the authorised officer entitled to investigate under MCOC. The said statement is in-admissible in evidence and ultimately the same cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating the alleged confession of co-accused Ravindra. 2 In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail. It is therefore directed that pending his trial in connection with C.R.No.I-415/2006 registered by the Turbhe police station, Navi Mumbai, the applicant may be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that he will report to the Investigating officer once a fortnight on every 1st and 3rd Mondays till the disposal of the trial and will not tamper with the evidence and will remain present on all dates of his trial unless exempted. The applicant will also not be released in case he wanted in some other crime where he shown to be arrested. Application disposed off. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3 4