1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3314 OF 2011 Birju s/o Fattu Bhosale ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri N.K.Kakade, advocate for applicant Shri B.V.Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 14th September, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Perused the investigation papers which were made available for perusal purpose and heard learned counsel for the parties finally. 2 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest under C.R. No. 7 of 2010, registered at Himayatnagar police station, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(2), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short ‘the MOCCA Act’). 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely Siddarth Vasantrao Gade, P.I. on 17.4.2010 at Himayatnagar police station, District Nanded, against the applicant, namely Birju Fattu Bhosale and other co-accused persons, alleging that the applicant herein has been involved in more than three cases, which are pending before the court and also alleging that the applicant being the member of organized crime syndicate, committed, by singly or jointly, sometimes headed by himself, showing that they have continuously committed, unlawful activity within the preceding period of ten years, against whom more than three charge sheets have been pending before the competent courts. 3 4 The investigation papers disclose that the applicant has been involved in four crimes, which are as follows :- (i) C.R. No. 59 of 2008 of Himayatnagar police station for offence punishable under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) C.R. No. 71 of 2008 of Kuntoor police station for offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 & 394 of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) C.R. No. 51 of 2008 of Sonkhedr police station for offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) C.R. No. 26 of 2011 of Ramdas Peth police station District Akola, for offence punishable under Sections 395, 302 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code. 5 Admittedly, all the offences attract the punishment of more than three years and the applicant along with the other respective co-accused committed the offence singly or jointly as the member of organized crime syndicate and in that respect more than one charge sheet has been filed within the preceding period of last ten years and the said cases are pending before the respective competent courts. Moreover, considering the 4 nature of offences allegedly committed by the applicant, it appears that the applicant has apparently committed continuing unlawful activities by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion or other unlawful means, and therefore, consequently, the said acts apparently covers Sections 3 (1) (2), 3 (2), 3 (3) and 3 (4) of the MOCCA Act. 6 It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant that although the offence was registered on 17.4.2010, the applicant came to be arrested belatedly on 25.5.2011 and his involvement therein is after thought. It is further submitted that there are four dependents upon the applicant and the applicant possesses the landed property and there was no criminal record of the applicant before 2008, and hence, it is canvassed that there is no possibility of abscondence of the applicant, and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor countered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant contending that the applicant is the habitual offender and three co-accused are yet to be arrested and the investigation is in 5 progress. It is also canvassed that the charges levelled against the applicant for the offences under the afore said C.Rs. pertain to serious offences. Moreover, it is further pointed out that the applicant does not possess any property and the property, which is allegedly shown to be possessed by the applicant, is, in fact, not possessed by him, but it is in the name of his mother. 8 Having the comprehensive view of the matter, as mentioned herein above, more than three charge sheets pertaining to serious offences have been filed against the applicant and same are pending before the respective courts. The investigation papers also reveal that the applicant is a habitual offender and his complicity in the serious offences is also apparent, as well as, it also appears that he committed the alleged offence singly or jointly as the member of organized crime syndicate, in respect of which more than one charge sheet has been filed within the preceding period of ten years, and apparently, the applicant/accused has committed continuing unlawful activities in the society, as mentioned herein above. Moreover, the investigation is in progress and same has not been completed so far. 6 9 Having the survey of the totality of the facts and circumstances, present application deserves to be rejected. 10 In the result, present application, which is sans merits, stands dismissed and same is disposed of finally. 11 The above observations are prima facie in nature and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding the same on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap3314.11