APEAL 1046, 1049, 1050, 1051 - 11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1046 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Vs. Sachin Bansilal Gaiwal ... Respondent (Orig. Accused No.3) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1049 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Vs. 1. Shreeman Abhiman More ... Respondents 2. Sagar Sonba Jogawade ..(Orig. Accused 16 & 25) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1050 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Vs. Ramesh Bhaskar Raut ... Respondent (Orig. Accused No.2) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1051 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Vs. Ravindra @ Ravi Sadashiv Bhandvalkar ... Respondent (Orig. Accused No.19) APEAL 1046, 1049, 1050, 1051 - 11 - 2 - *** Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Appellant. Ms. Nagma Tandon with Debajyoti Talukdar, for the Respondent *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2011 PC: 1. All these appeals can be disposed of by a common order. The appellant-State has preferred this appeal under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as the “MCOC Act”), challenging the order passed by the Sessions Judge, MCOC Act, Pune. Respondent in Cri. Appeal No. 1046/2011 is original accused No.3; respondents in Cri. Appeal No. 1049/2011 are original accused Nos. 16 and 25. Respondent in Cri. Appeal No. 1050/ 2011 is original accused No.2; and respondent in Cri. Appeal No. 1051/2011 is original accused No. 19. 2. The trial court after taking into consideration the material which is there on record in respect of each of the respondents, has come to the conclusion that the probability of conviction of the accused appears to to be remote. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Special Judge, MCOC Act, Pune in each of these appeals. We are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the said orders passed by the Special Judge in granting bail to the respondents. The Apex Court in the case of – Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra, [(2005) 5 SCC 294], the Apex Court has APEAL 1046, 1049, 1050, 1051 - 11 - 3 - observed that provisions of Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act, cannot be interpreted to mean that the court must record findings that the accused has not committed any offence under the MCOC Act. The Apex Court has observed that while construing the said provisions, the court should maintain a delicate balance and give a finding which is tentative in nature, since the said findings are to be recorded in the bail application. 3. So far as accused No. 3 is concerned, the Special Judge has observed that apart from the accused being brother of the main accused, there is no material to show that he is a member of crime organized syndicate. Further, it is observed that there are no criminal antecedents. It is also observed that the said accused was working in the capacity of teacher in Mahesh Balbhavan, Pune; Pune Municipal Corporation has felicitated him for the contribution in the field of education. Therefore, it is not necessary to be interfered with the said order impugned in the appeal. 4. So far as accused Nos. 16 and 25 are concerned, the only material on record against accused No. 16 is the statement of Bhaiyya Kadam and recovery of mobile; and so far as other accused No. 25 is concerned, his name is spelt out by witness Shrirang Dimbale. The confession is also given by co-accused Rupesh Amrale, which was later on retracted by him. Regarding statement of witness, there is no corroboration from other witnesses; no recovery has been made at their instance, and their names are not mentioned in the FIR and the two supplementary statements of the informant, and therefore, it is not APEAL 1046, 1049, 1050, 1051 - 11 - 4 - necessary to interfere with the order impugned in the appeal. 5. So far as accused No. 2 is concerned, the only evidence against him is that statement of Bhaiyya Kadam, who does not mention any overt act on the part of the accused. His name is not mentioned in the FIR. There is no recovery at his instance. There are no criminal antecedents; there is no evidence to show his link with any organized crime syndicate. Hence, it is not necessary to interfere the order impugned in the appeal. 6. So far as accused No. 19, the only material which is available against him, is a statement made by the witness Sanjay Baikar and confession of co-accused Rupesh Amrale which has been retracted later on. There is no recovery at his instance. In the statement of Sanjay Baikar, no allegation of commission of any overt act has been made; nor his name is mentioned in the FIR. Hence, no case is made out for interference in the order impugned in the appeal. Hence, all the criminal appeals are dismissed. [M. L. TAHALIYANI, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]