APEAL. 1228-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1228 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant Vs. Umesh Mohan Kirve & Ors. ... Respondent (Orig. Accused Nos. 9, 4, 7 & 8) *** Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Appellant. Mr. M. S. Mohite, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & K. K. TATED, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2011 PC: 1. Respondents in this appeal are original accused Nos. 4, 7, 8 and 9. The appellant-State has challenged the judgment and order dated 24th January, 2011, passed by the Special Judge, MCOC Act, Pune, who was pleased to grant bail to the respondents, and in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as the “MCOC Act”), the State has preferred this appeal. 2. The appeals preferred by the State in respect of some of the co-accused have been dismissed by this Court by an order dated 12th December, 2011. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The Apex Court in the case of – APEAL. 1228-11 - 2 - Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra, [(2005) 5 SCC 294], the Apex Court has 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. The name of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are not mentioned in the FIR. However, names of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are mentioned in the supplementary statements dated 9-5-2010 and 19-9-2010. No overt act against them is mentioned in the supplementary statements. 4. So far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, the witness Ritesh @ Rinkya has mentioned his name. However, no overt act is attributed to respondent No.3. The trial court has observed that there are no criminal antecedents against the respondents and only one crime has been registered against them at the Kothrud Police Station. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has given cogent reasons while granting bail to the respondent. No case is made out for interfering with the order impugned in this appeal. Criminal appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [K. K. TATED, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]