IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 234/2008 Eknath Chavhan ...vs.. State ================================= CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR,J. DATE:1.4.2008. Heard Mr. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Patel, A.P.P. for state. This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. read with section 21 of the M.C.O.C. Act for grant of bail. The applicant is being prosecuted for the offences under section 3(2) of the M.C.O.C. Act arising out of Crime No.3028/2006 of P.S. Jaripatka. Learned A.P.P. has referred to the chart of cases pending against the applicant and contended that the offence at serial no.7 -Crime No.299/2004 – Case No.307/2005 and Crime No.686/05 bring the applicant within the purview of the M.C.O.C. Act. He has pressed into service the observations of the learned trial Judge thus: “5) It is seen from the above chart that the offences which are prior to year 1999 i.e. prior coming into force MCOC Act has got no relevancy for consideration of this application. It is further seen that as against the accused no.1 Eknath two cases are pending in Crime No.299/06 and 686/05. The crime No.299/04 is relating to the offences punishable under Sections 380, 427, 143 and 148 of IPC and Crime No.686/05 is relating to the offences punishable under section 384, 452, 506-B of IPC. Thus I find that as the two charge sheets are pending of which the court has taken cognizance against the said accused, the bar created under section 21(1)(4) of M.C.O.C. Act comes in the way of said accused for granting him bail and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.” Learned counsel for the applicant has produced the copy of the judgment in Regular Criminal Case No.458/2006 arising out of the Crime No.686/2005. Said judgment shows that all the other accused were acquitted in that case and the trial of this applicant could not be held because this is M.C.O.C. matter was pending. The relevant deposition of the complainant therein i.e. P.W.2 Lokchand shows that in cross examination he has specifically stated that due to darkness he had not seen faces of the person who came to his house at that time. It is also stated by him that at that time people in the locality were collecting money to release accused persons who were arrested in murder case of Akku Yadao. He has specifically stated that it is true that he had lodged report against the accused persons on the say of persons residing in his locality. It is difficult to believe that case would end in the conviction of the present applicant, in these circumstances. As such consideration of the case at serial no.9 [686/05] cannot be said to be relevant for bringing the applicant within the purview of section 3(2) of M.C.O.C.Act. Thus only one case remains against applicant for consideration and therefore, ex-facie it does not appear that the applicant is liable to be proceeded under M.C.O.C. Act. In these circumstances, applicant would be entitled for bail. However, as other cases mentioned in the list are pending against him, bail would be subject to stringent condition. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety and PRB of Rs.25000/- subject to conditions that he shall not commit any offence in future and shall attend trial regularly. Bail in lower court. It is made clear that the above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and as such they will not be taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge while considering the mater on merits. Application stands disposed of. Hamdast granted. JUDGE smp.