TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1824
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered for offences punishable under Sections 320, 120B, 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'), Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short, 'the MCOCA'). As per the impugned order, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were granted bail in the said case. Manifold contentions have been raised to challenge the grant. Before delving into them, compendiously, we will refer to the prosecution's case which led to the case on hand. 3. There was a long-drawn civil dispute between the deceased Rajesh Haridas Kanabar on one side and families of respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other over certain extent of land comprised in Gat No.348 situated at Bavdhan in Pune. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, appointed accused No.3 as their agent to take care of their legal matter and other issues relating to the aforesaid property. Though, a settlement was seemingly arrived at, the accused were under the impression that the deceased was not favourably responding to the settlement. On 05.10.2020, the revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Nos.2 and 3 and it would certainly deprive a fair trial to the prosecution. Raising such contentions, the impugned order granting bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is sought to be quashed and set aside and that they be made to surrender soon. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would contend that the impugned order invites no interference. The contention of the learned counsel is to the effect that initially, the accused were not accused of commission of offence(s) under MCOCA and they were inserted later, through supplementary report, solely with the intention to ensure non-grant of bail to the accused. It is also submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested in connection with the subject crime on 06.10.2020 and they were enlarged on bail as per the order impugned only on 06.11.2023. A perusal of the conditions of bail would reveal that they were adequate and appropriate to ensure that the accused would not flee from justice and would face the trial, it was further submitted. 6. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that since MCOCA is involved in this case on hand, the accused/respondent Nos.2 and 3 could n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the stage of consideration of an appeal and as such, the admissibility and evidentiary value are matters to be decided during the trial and are not matters for consideration at the present stage of the proceedings. 7. In the light of the core contention raised by the appellant that the High Court had transgressed into impermissible area inasmuch as the question of sufficiency or otherwise and correctness of the prosecution case were considered while passing the impugned order instead of confining the consideration in regard to the question of satisfaction or otherwise of the stringent conditions in the matter of grant of bail where offences under MCOCA are involved. As noted above, grant of bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by the High Court is not on the ground(s) of violation of Part-III of the Constitution of India. 8. A mere glance at the impugned order would go to show that there is substance in the contentions of the appellant. No serious effort is required to pick out such observations in the form of findings made in the impugned order by the High Court in regard to the role of the accused persons involved in the crime in question, including that of respondent Nos. 2 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he trial and if they are allowed to remain, it would deprive them of a fair trial. The fact is that besides such specific observations in the nature of findings in regard to the roles played (or not played) by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 and the consequential conclusion that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to bail, as accused No.3 who played direct role was granted bail there was no consideration in the manner required under law considering the fact that the case on hand carries allegation of commission of offences under MCOCA against respondent Nos.2 and 3. We may hasten to add that we shall not be understood to have held that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had played a definite roles in the commission of the offence involved in the case on hand which resulted in the death of Rajesh Haridas Kanabar. Certainly, the question whether his death is homicide and if so, who is or are the culprit(s) are matters to be decided by the trial Court on conclusion of the trial. In short, appreciation of materials on record for the purpose of forming a definite opinion with respect to the question as to whether an accused person(s) had played roles or not, in the crime concerned is not permissible while c....