( 1 ) 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.539 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.539 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.539 OF 2008 Sambhaji Haribhau Kudale .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mr.Sudhir Halli for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mr.Sudhir Halli for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is concerned in C.R. No.70 of 2004 of Loni Kalbhor Police Station and is facing prosecution under Section 3(1)(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said "Act"). 3. The applicant is in custody since 3.9.2004. A perusal of the FIR and the relevant statements would ( 2 ) go to show that according to the prosecution, the applicant had close connection with one person by name Appa @ Prakash Londhe and according to the prosecution, the applicant is associated with this Appa Londhe and that the said Appa Londhe in the company of the applicant and other co-accused have created a terror in the locality and offences one after the other are being committed. It is with this background, the applicant came to be charged under the provisions of Section 3(1)(4) of the said Act. In the FIR, the name of the present applicant is not found. However, in the further statement rendered by the Police Officer Mr.Balasaheb More, in the nature of tabular form, the alleged involvement of the present applicant in number of offences is sought to be made out and the total number of offences for which the applicant is said to be involved are divided into three categories i.e. category No.A, B and C. In category A, the applicant is alleged to be involved with Appa Londhe in two cases. This is C.R.No.81 of 1997 of Yawat police station wherein the allegations are that the applicant has committed an offence punishable under Sections 341 and 337 of the I.P.C. The 2nd C.R.is 90 of 2004 wherein, it is alleged that the applicant has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The category "B" relates to allegation in regard to offence punishable ( 3 ) under Sections 447 and 427 in the company of Appa Londhe. Category "C" relates to Chapter cases under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. 4. With the aforesaid material, the charge under Section 3(1)(4) of the said Act is pressed against the applicant and the applicant continues to be in custody as mentioned aforesaid. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Gupte took me through the relevant Sections for which the applicant stands prosecuted for the various cases as mentioned aforesaid and tried to point out that sofar as Part "A" is concerned, the applicant is prosecuted for two cases. In C.R.No.81 of 1991, the maximum punishment which can be imposed upon the applicant is 3 years. In C.R.No.90 of 2004 the punishment would be death or life imprisonment as charge is under Sec.302 of I.P.C. Insofar as Chapter Part "B" is concerned, the maximum punishment which can be imposed upon the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 427 is two years. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Gupte submitted that it is alleged by prosecution that the present applicant is indulging in continuing unlawful activities. According to Mr.Gupte to allege that the ( 4 ) present applicant is indulging in continuing unlawful activities, the requirements of provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act are required to be fulfilled with reference to the number of charge-sheets and other details. 7. With the assistance of learned Advocates on both the sides, I have checked up the number of charge-sheets which are filed wherein the applicant could be sentenced for a period of more than three years and on considering the aforesaid Parts - A, B and C, it could be said that sofar as Part "A" is concerned, the applicant would be considered as a person involved in an offence only in one case where he is facing charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and that does not conform to the requirement of the word "more than one charge-sheet". Sofar as the Part "B" is concerned, there is only one offence and the maximum punishment is 2 years and, therefore, the allegations sofar as Part "B" would not go within the meaning of the term "continuing unlawful activities". As such, on considering of the record before the Court, it would be difficult to accept, of course, prima-facie that the applicant can be styled as a person, who is indulging in continuing unlawful activities as understood in Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act. ( 5 ) 8. Apart from this all these cases which are appearing in Part A and B, the applicant has been acquitted after he was required to face the trial. This is one more circumstance in favour of the applicant for the purposes of considering his prayer for bail. 9. Learned A.P.P.Mr.Dedhia had submitted that the end result of a trial, namely; the acquittal or conviction is immaterial for the purpose of deciding the validity of the allegations as allegation records charge under Section 3(1)(4) of the said Act and in support of this, Mr.Dedhia relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Bharat Shantilal Shal Bharat Shantilal Shal Bharat Shantilal Shal v/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 ALL MR v/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 ALL MR v/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri.) 1061 (Cri.) 1061 (Cri.) 1061 and my attention was drawn to paragraph 27 of the said judgement. 10. I have perused the said judgement. It is true that the said judgement indicates that the acquittal of a particular person in the various cases linked against him shall have no bearing with reference to the number of allegations for having committed an offence under the said Act. However, in the present case, if the prosecution has not been able to make out a case that the present applicant was indulging in ( 6 ) continuing unlawful activities as set out in Section 2(1)(d) as discussed above, it would be difficult to observe that the Bar imposed upon the Court for grant of bail under Section 21(4) of the said Act exists. Hence, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the applicant is required to be granted bail. 11. Keeping in view the material placed before the Court, I am convinced that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence under the Act while on bail and to that extent, 2nd requirement of Section 21(4) of the said Act is fulfilled. 12. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am inclined to grant bail subject, of course, directing the applicant to report to the concerned police station for some time. Hence the following order :- a) The applicant is granted bail in C.R.No.70 of 2004 of Loni Kalbhor police station. It is hereby ordered that the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Applicant to execute P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-. b) Applicant shall not leave the limits ( 7 ) of district Pune without the permission of the Special Judge M.C.O.C., Pune. c) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station on every Monday and Thursday between 4.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. till the trial is over. 13. Request for cash bail was made and the same is rejected. 14. Application stands disposed off in the above terms. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)