State Of Maharashtra vs Vishwanath Maranna Shetty

3) Brief facts:

(a) According to the prosecution, an “organised crime syndicate” headed by wanted accused Bharat Nepali and Vijay Shetty is operating overseas. The said syndicate has indulged in various continuous unlawful activities in the nature of extortion and contract killings in Mumbai and other places through their members. All the accused persons pending on the file before the MCOC Special Court, Greater Bombay are alleged to be the members of the said syndicate.

(b) On 03.06.2010, one Farid Tanasha, known criminal, was shot dead at his residence at Tilaknagar, Chembur, Mumbai. On the same day, an FIR being No. 122 of 2010 was registered against the accused persons under Sections 302 and 452 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and under Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Tilaknagar Police Station.

(d) It was further revealed during investigation that the respondent herein was an active member of the “organised crime syndicate” and was managing funds of the syndicate and through him the money changed hands from co-accused Dattatray Bhakare to Jafar Razialam Khan @ Abbas and Mohd. Sakib Shahnawaz Alam Khan, Accused Nos. 1 & 2 respectively, who killed Farid Tanasha.

(e) On 25.09.2010, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, accorded sanction for prosecution of the arrested accused persons including the respondent herein under Section 3(1)(i), (2) and (4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (in short ‘the MCOCA’) and hence the respondent is alleged to have committed the offences provided hereinabove along with the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.

(f) The respondent herein preferred an application for bail in Special Case No. 10 of 2010 before the MCOC Special Court, Greater Bombay. By order dated 07.05.2011, the Special Court dismissed the said application.

(g) Being aggrieved, the respondent herein preferred Criminal Bail Application No. 872 of 2011 before the High Court. By impugned order dated 10.08.2011, the High Court accepted the case of the respondent and granted him bail by imposing certain conditions.

16) It is relevant to point out that the materials placed by the prosecution show that one Vijay Shetty and the respondent are members of Bharat Nepali’s “organized crime syndicate”. It is also the definite stand of the prosecution that the said Bharat Nepali as well as Vijay Shetty, who murdered Farid Tanasha are said to be out of India and are indulging into the organized crime through the members of the syndicate. The materials placed further show that Dattatray Bhakare-a builder, was doing a project at Chembur, Mumbai and some members of the Co-operative Housing Society had some dispute with him, therefore, they had approached Farid Tanasha, who had a criminal background and he also agreed to help those persons in their dispute with the builder. On knowing this, Dattatray Bhakare contacted Bharat Nepali and Vijay Shetty for eliminating Farid Tanasha and for that he allegedly financed a sum of Rs.90 lakhs which was paid to the said wanted accused persons through the arrested accused persons. The investigation also reveals that about Rs. 9 lakhs were given to the main shooter – Mohd. Sakib Shahnawaz Alam Khan (Accused No.2) through Mohd. Rafiq (Accused No. 6). The said Accused No.6 made a confessional statement as far as the respondent herein is concerned. It was alleged that Accused No.6, on the instructions of the wanted accused - Vijay Shetty, used to collect money from the respondent and on several occasions, he handed over the same to Accused No. 2. It was also alleged that on the instructions of the wanted accused – Vijay Shetty, Accused No. 6 paid a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs to the respondent herein on 28.05.2011. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the third week of June, 2010, Accused No. 6 received an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs from an employee of the respondent. The substance of the allegation against the respondent is that part of the amount, which was given to the shooter for killing Farid Tanasha, had been passed on through him to the actual shooter. It is not in dispute that sanction under Section 23(2) of MCOCA had been accorded by the Commissioner of Police on 25.09.2010.

23) In our opinion, the impugned order having been passed ignoring the mandatory requirements of Section 21(4) of MCOCA, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court dated 10.08.2011 in Criminal Bail Application No. 872 of 2011 granting bail to the respondent is set aside and the order of the special Judge dated 07.05.2011 in M.C.O. Special Case No.10 of 2010 is restored. In view of the same, the respondent is directed to surrender before the Special Court within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the special Court is directed to take appropriate steps for his arrest.

24) The appeal of State of Maharashtra is allowed.

OCTOBER 19, 2012.