1 CR.APL NO.5431/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.5431 of 2010 1. Ukla s/o Fakira Pawar, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agri., r/o Brahmani, Tq. Adilabad District Nirmal, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Pundlik s/o Ukla Pawar, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agri., r/o as above. 3. Dashrath s/o Ukla Pawar, Age 29 years, Occ: Agri., r/o as above. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. N.S.Ghanekar, Adv., for the applicants. Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for State. ... with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.9/2011 Raju s/o Mariba Gaikwad, @ Vishwanath s/o Rama Vinkare, Age 40 years, Occ: labour R/O. Chalgani, Tq. Umarkhed, District Yewatmal, At present Mudkhed, Dist. Nanded. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 2 CR.APL NO.5431/2010 The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:1/3/2011 *** PER COURT : 1. The accused/applicants seek bail in connection with Crime No.2/2010, registered at Hadgaon Police Station for the offense under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4), 21 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 ( for short, MCOC Act). 2. Mr. Ghanekar, Counsel, submits that there are no good reasons to detain the accused/applicants in custody as the recovery of Rs.700/­ shown to be made against one of the accused/applicants has no nexus to any of the crime. The accused/applicants have been acquitted in Crime No.118/2010 and, consequently, provisions of MCOC Act will not be applicable. There is no proper identification of the accused and no role specifically is attributed to any of 3 CR.APL NO.5431/2010 the accused/applicants. 3. Before adverting to above submissions, let us visualize legal position. Section 2(1)(d) and Section 2(1)(e), 2(1)(f) of MCOC Act, conceive 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 organised 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; 2(1)(e) "organised crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any person or promoting insurgency; 2(1)(f) "organised crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate of gang indulge in activities of organised crime; " 4 CR.APL NO.5431/2010 4. The contention of Mr. Ghanekar that the accused/applicants are acquitted in one of the case, even if correct, however, there was more than one chargesheet against the accused/applicants, Section does not isolate and clarify to the benefit of acquittal in any of such chargesheet. One should not be oblivious to the object of MCOC Act which desires to restrict and arrest organized crime groups or their members. Section 2(1)(d) read from any angle, contemplates the activities prohibited by law which are in force, naturally punishable for infraction of such Sections. The unlawful activities would embrace in its bracket decoity, robbery, looting. 5. Even if accused is acquitted in Crime No.118/2005 of Hadgaon Police Station, the accused/applicants are facing crime No.190/2005 ( Latur Police Station) and Crime No.62/2009 ( Hadgaon Police Station) for an offense punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of IPC. The prima facie evidence is illustrative of a reasonable impression that the accused/applicants are members of organized crime and have continued their illegal/unlawful activities attracting the bar of Section 2(1)(d) of MCOC Act. The nature of offense and the duration is within the span of 10 years. 5 CR.APL NO.5431/2010 6. In fact, considering addresses of the accused/applicants, they they hail from Andhra Pradesh, if enlarged on bail, it will be an herculean task to trace them to answer the charge. After enlargement, the activities and the crime rate is bound to be multiplied and magnified. The accused Raju has given his address of Chalgani, Tq. Umarkhed, dist. Nanded. 7. The earlier application, being No. 1391/2010, of applicants ( 5431/2010) was rejected by this Court on 20th July,2010. It is submitted, present application is after the chargesheet. However, the date of the chargesheet is not specified though it is in July, 2010 itself. The elaborate reasons assigned, while rejecting the application, have not changed the situation to consider present application favourably. Mere filing of chargesheet by itself would not be a good ground for branding change of circumstances to dilute the rigours of Section 3(1)(2), 3(2)(f), 3(4) of MCOC Act. The allegations of doubtful recovery of Rs.700/­ or defects in parade would not be a yardstick to enlarge the accused on bail. The identification in Court has its worth than questioning test identification parade. 6 CR.APL NO.5431/2010 The applications lack merit, dismissed. Trial expedited. Communicate. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/5431­10crapl