1 CR.APL NO.1703/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1703/2011 ( Hirasing Vijaysing Junni Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. A.B.Gaikwad, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:5/5/2011 1. Heard Mr.Gaikwad extensively. 2. The accused/applicant, in custody in Crime No.I-3021/2010, registered at Bhagya Nagar Police Station, dist. Nanded, for the offenses under Sections 3(1)(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 ( for short, MCOC Act), has urged bail. 3. Mr. Gaikwad submits that the two cases to which reference is given; being RCC No. 83/2006, arising out of Crime No.3/2006 and Sessions Case No.9/2006, arising out of Crime No.6/2006, registered at Vasmat Police Station have resulted in acquittal of the accused/applicant. 4. Seven persons are involved in the present crime pending before the learned 2 CR.APL NO.1703/2011 Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, which came to be registered as Special Case No.3/2010. Learned Counsel submits that there was no reason or justification in filing the chargesheet when the accused/applicant is already acquitted in above referred two crimes, registered at Vasmat Police Station. 5. Learned Sessions Judge on 24.11.2010 did not agree to the submission of the accused/applicant to enlarge him on bail and rejected the application. 6. The acquittal by itself would not mitigate the situation as the Section contemplates the term "chargesheet". The object of MCOC Act desires to restrict organized crime or their groups or their members. Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act, read from any angle, contemplate the activities which are prohibited by law in force, naturally punishable for its infraction. Unlawful activities, would embrace in its bracket, Decoity, rioting, looting. 7. Prima facie evidence is illustrative of reasonable impression that the accused/applicant is a member of organized crime and if he is not detained, he will continue with the illegal unlawful activities, attracting bar in terms of 3 CR.APL NO.1703/2011 Section 2(1)(d) of MCOC Act. Considering these aspects and, the addresses mentioned by the accused to be at Vasmat, dist. Hingoli and the area of operation, allegedly, in the nearby vicinity, Application lacks merit, rejected. The learned Special Judge seized with the Sessions case shall endeavour expeditious disposal, considering volume of evidence. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/1703-11crapl