1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2863/2009. (Vishwajit Ramkishan Bhatu (Thakur) Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs.Sadhana S Jadhav, Adv. for applicant; Mrs.BR Khekale, APP for State. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14 th September,2009. 1. Heard learned Counsel and learned APP. 2. Charge sheet is filed against the accused. 3. Learned APP informs, there are at least eight cases, in which role of the accused is indicated. Learned defence counsel informs, the accused had been acquitted in at least from 3-4 of such cases, namely, in Crime No.74/2000; Crime No.73/2000. 4. The details of the pending Crimes are referred by the learned APP as also by the Counsel representing the accused at page 17 and 18 of the compilation. 5. The accused hails from Muradabad. He has undergone conviction, vide Crime No. 68/2000, for an offence under Section 392, 506, wherein he suffered sentence of two years and six months. It is 2 informed at Batala, Crime No.92/2000 is pending against him, though the counsel informs in the said case the accused is acquitted. 6. Learned Counsel for the accused placed reliance to the Judgment in the matter of Madan s/o Ramkisan Gangwani Vs. State of Maharashtra - 2009 All M.R.(Cri.) 1447, where the Division Bench has considered the scope of Sections 2 and 3 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999(for short, MCOC Act). In the matter of Prafulla Vs. State of Maharashtra, Section 3 of the MCOC Act, was discussed. In the matter of Govind Vs. State of Maharashtra, the provision of Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act, has been discussed, which reads as under. 2(1)(d)”continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such, syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been field before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence”. 7. The other submission is Pawan, the other 3 accused, has been directed to be released in the same case by the same MCOC Court and on the principle of parity, the accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail, for which, unsigned unauthenticated copy of order below Exhibit-4 in Special Case No. 2/2003 is tendered by the learned Counsel. 8. The role attributed to the applicant/accused in the present case and in the other case is vital. Filing of charge sheet by itself will not provide a license to get release. There is recovery against the accused. The record does not permit to entertain bail application. He projects to be a habitual offender. The ground of parity, to which reference is given, cannot be considered for want of authenticated copy of the order and relevant papers and even otherwise the role of the present applicant/accused is quite clear and grave too. 9. In the circumstances, bail application rejected. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran2863.09