1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.581 OF 2010 Hirabai R. Kale. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 582 OF 2010 Balu Motiram Pawar. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr.Vishal Bhanushali for the Applicant. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP. For the State. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP. for the State in Criminal Application No.582 of 2010. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 23rd April, 2010 PC : 1 Since the applicants in both these applicants are shown as an accused in C.R.No.I-83/2008 registered by Bhayander Police 2 Station for the alleged offences under Sections 395, 397, 412, 450, 120B of the I.P.C. and under Sections 3(i)(II), 3(2) 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control Organized Crimes Act, 1999, both these applications can be conveniently disposed by this common order. The Criminal Application No.581/2010 is filed by Hirabai Rajendra Kale whereas the applicant in Criminal Application No.582/2010 is Balu Motiram Pawar. The incident took place on 27.6.2009 at 3.00a.m. at night. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that dacoity was committed in the house of one Hemangi Harishchandra Patil and her husband was assaulted. The dacoits committed the theft of Rs.2,30,000/-. Offence is thus registered U/s.395, 397, 412, 415 and 120B of the I.P.C. and U/s. 3(I)(II) of the MCOC Act. In so far as application of the applicant Hirabai Rajendra Kale is concerned, the learned A.P.P. admits that she was not the person present when the dacotiy was committed. Her role is involved in organized crime. The statement of the co accused 3 i. e. her husband indicates involvement of his wife. The subject matter of the of the dacotiy was handed over to her and she was keeping the same in her house and thereafter he was selling the same in the market. There is no recovery from Rajendra Kale and there is no statement of any Jeweller to indicate the involvement of the applicant Hirabai Kale. The present applicant Hirabai is the wife of Rajendra Kale and it was but natural that Rajendra Kale bring items of dacoity in his house. It has to be carefully considered whether the act of allowing her husband to keep the ornaments in the house will amount to abetment within the meaning of the MCOC Act. It is not the prosecution case that she herself was selling the ornaments to the Jewellers. Further statement of the co accused Rajendra Kale is not a substantial piece of evidence. There is no corroborative evidence available in the present case. It is therefore, doubtful whether the applicant Hirabai will be convicted of the offence punishable under MCOC Act. 4 She is in Jail since 20.9.2008. In the circumstances, it is directed that pending her trial in pursuance of C.R. No.83/2008 registered by Bhayander Police Station, the applicant Hirabai R. Kale will be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that she will report to the Investigating Officer once in a fortnight between 11-AM to 5-00PM till the disposal of the trial and will remain present on all the dates of the trial in the trial court unless exempted. Criminal Application No.581/2010 is thus allowed. 2 In so far as the Application No.582/2010 is concerned, the applicant therein Balu Motiram Pawar is one of the dacoit and the confessional statement of co-accused Rajendra Kale indicates a clear picture of role played by this applicant. There is corroborative evidence in the form of his finger prints which is found at the scene of offence. Criminal Application No.582/2010 is therefore, 5 rejected. 3 Both the applications stand disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry of this court. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.)