1 APPLN 4412 OF 2009.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4412 OF 2009. Jagmal Singh Bhuraram Choudhari .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. Vidhyadhar Koshe i/b Avinash Kamkhedkar, for the Applicant. Mrs. Geeta Mulekar, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 14th December, 2010 P.C. 1. This is an application for bail by a person who is alleged to have provided his car on two occasions to kidnappers who kidnapped a boy for ransom and killed him in the forest in Gujarat State. The applicant has also provided a room to the kidnapper in Gujarat State. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had no knowledge that the car would be used for making an attempt to kidnap the boy or that the room was being used for lodging persons who were at that time involved in kidnapping. He submits that two co-accused have been bailed out by this Court, by order dated 18th April,2007, in Criminal Application No.946 of 2007. They were Hawala Agents. They had in fact received the ransom 2 APPLN 4412 OF 2009.sxw amount and transmitted it to the kidnapper. This Court while admitting them to bail, held that they did not have knowledge that the amount which they were transmitting was the ransom. Therefore, on the ground of parity, learned counsel for the applicant states that since the applicant too did not have such knowledge, he should be admitted to bail. He also submits that there is no prima facie case against the applicant. The case is based on the confessional statements which have not been recorded according to provisions in the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. The charge has yet not been framed though the applicant is in jail since last five years. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed this application. There can be no question of parity as co- accused Shamsuddin Mohammed Kunhi and Mohammed Abbas Ali, who have been admitted to bail, by order of this Court, in Criminal Application No.946 of 2007, had received a ransom amount for being transmitting to the recipient. They were Hawala Agents. The applicant does not claim to be an operator of Taxi or one who keeps lodging house. Hence there is no reason for him to provide car and that too on two occasions to the kidnappers or to house them in a room since he is not a lodge keeper. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant’s role is similar to that of the accused persons who were bailed out by this Court. 3 APPLN 4412 OF 2009.sxw 3. As far as absence of prima facie case or inadmissibility of the confessional statement, it would be hazardous to make any comment at this stage. These things could be best considered by the learned Special Judge under MCOC Act, while framing the charge. It is unfortunate that the applicant is in jail for last five years and the charge has yet not been framed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor informs that because two of the other accused persons are absconding, the case has not been taken up for framing of charge and is not proceeding further. In that case, the prosecution could move the Court for separating the trial of accused who are absconding and proceed with the case as early as possible. It would not be appropriate to keep the applicant behind the bars without trial for such a long time. Expecting that the trial would commence within two months and the case would be heard and disposed of within a period of six months, the application is rejected. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)