IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4218 of 2007. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4218 of 2007. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4218 of 2007. Sanjay Murlidhar Taralkar ..Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Nitin Sejpal for the Applicant Mr.Saste for the State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. P.C. 1. The applicant is arrested in C.R.No.52 of 2003 of Deolali Camp Police Station under Section 302 r/w. Section 120(b) r.w, Section 34 if IPC and under the provisions of Arms Act. After the arrest, during the course of investigation sanction was obtained by the investigating authorities under the provisions of Section 3(1)((i), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of MCOC Act, 1999 hereinafter referred to as the said Act. As a result of this, applicant is charged under the provisions of the said Act. The applicant moved for bail before the learned Special Judge at Nashik, and the learned Special Judge by order dated 25.10.2007 rejected the application for bail. Hence this bail application. -2- 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Sejpal appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Saste appearing on behalf of the State. In the affidavit in reply filed by the State, a table is shown thereby indicating the various cases for which the applicant came to be arrested and attended to accordingly. Those cases are in all four in number including the present case and three cases pertaining to DCB CID, Mumbai, Chembur and Bandra Police Station respectively. All those cases are the one where the punishment prescribed under the respective section for which applicant is charged for a period more than three years. According to the applicant he is acquitted in all the cases where he had faced trial, except the present C.R.No. 52 of 2003. 3. So far as the facts of C.R.No.52/2003 is concerned, the applicant is said to have participated in the commission of the offence under Section 302 in regard to causing the death of V.S.Shroff as set out in the chargesheet. In so far as the material as regards the alleged incident of causing death of V.S.Shroff, the investigating -3- agency could record the confession of the co-accused by name Ramdas Parshuram, Rahane and the said confession is recorded under the provisions of Section 18 of the said Act. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Sejpal appearing on behalf of the applicant pointed out that the only piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant, so far as the C.R.No.52/2003 is concerned, is confessional statement of Mr.Rahane and that the confessional statement is a weak piece of evidence and there is no other material to corroborate the contents of the said confession and as such the material should not be used against the applicant for the purpose of contending that the requirements of Section 21(4) of the said Act are not fulfilled. 5. According to learned Advocate Mr. Sejpal, this is a fit case where the court should record that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence as understood within the meaning of Section 21(4) of the said Act and that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. -4- 6. Learned Advocate Mr Sejpal, in support of his submission to have bail for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2007) 1 SCC Maharashtra & Another reported in (2007) 1 SCC Maharashtra & Another reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 329, (Cri) 329, (Cri) 329, to point out to this court as to what should be the approach of the court while entertaining the application for bail where the applicant is alleged to have been arrested under the provisions of MCOC Act. Learned Advocate Mr. Sejpal read to me the said judgment and submitted that the law laid down by the Supreme Court should be appreciated by this Court and that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. Sejpal also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Babanrao Tukaram Ranjane v. State of Babanrao Tukaram Ranjane v. State of Babanrao Tukaram Ranjane v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 562, Maharashtra reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 562, Maharashtra reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 562, Gokul Bhagaji Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Anr Gokul Bhagaji Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Anr Gokul Bhagaji Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Anr reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 573 (S.C), reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 573 (S.C), reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 573 (S.C), to contend that the long drawn custody of the applicant should be considered by the court for the purpose of deciding the question of bail in favour of the -5- applicant. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Sejpal had therefore submitted that the applicant has made out a case for bail and therefore the application for bail should be granted. Learned Advocate Mr. Saste opposed the bail application contending that the overt act committed by the applicant squarely falls within the definition of the term Continued Unlawful Activity and organised crime as understood within the meaning of Section 2(d) and 2(e) respectively of the said Act, and that the applicant was charged for the offence more than once where the punishment is for a period of more than three years. Learned Advocate Mr. Saste submitted that the confession rendered by Rahane under Section 18 of the said Act cannot be brushed away and the court at this stage cannot look for the corroboration and say that in the absence of corroboration the confession is without any value. Mr. Saste prays for dismissal of the application. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. The fact that the applicant was shown as concerned in more than one case, where the punishment -6- prescribed under the respective Sections was for three years is made out on the basis of the table which is set out in the affidavit in reply. If that is so, the applicant can be said to have been indulged in continuing the unlawful activity as understood under Section 2(d) of the said Act and that the applicant can be said to be indulging in organised crime under Section 2(e) of the said Act. If that is so, the prosecution has been able to make out prima facie case under Section 3 of the said Act. The confessional statement of Rahane is supported by the documents to show that the applicant is involved in activity which falls within the meaning of the term organised crime. At this stage of the proceeding this Court should not look in for corroboration of the confessional statement which is otherwise admissible in the proceeding as the material to be considered for the purpose of deciding the case of a particular accused and once the prosecution has been able to place before the court the confession recorded under Section 18 of the said Act, the said confessions will have to be given appropriate weightage at the stage of hearing the bail application and it cannot be discarded. The -7- judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav, if considered in the light of paragraph 12 onwards it would be necessary for the court to satisfy itself whether the requirement of Section 21(4) of the said Act are fulfilled. On doing that I am not inclined to hold that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is guilty of the offence alleged against him particularly under Section 3 of the said Act. Once the first requirement of Section 21(4) clause (b) is observed to have been not fulfilled, the applicant cannot get bail because of the non obstante clause of Section 21. 10. It is true that the applicant is in custody for a period of four years, however, that by itself cannot be the ground to grant bail when the requirements of Section 21(4) are not fulfilled. For these reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail and the application for bail is required to be rejected. Hence the Order. ORDER . Application for bail is rejected. -8- . The learned trial Judge will not read this order while deciding the case finally. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)