CNR No. MHNS010035122022
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No. 860/2021
(Rahul Ajay Ujjainwal Vs. State)
Perused application and say. Heard both the learned Counsels.
2. By this first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C., the accused 14 Rahul Ajay Ujjainwal of Crime
No.155/2021 registered with Upnagar Police Station, Nashik for the offence punishable under sections 392, 395, 120 (B), 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 (25) of Arms Act.
3. It is objected over nature of offence and role attributed from charge sheet.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, though pending investigation, the offence under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short MCOC Act) was applied and custody was extended, the Competent Authority did not accord sanction, under section 23 of the Act. Only it was accorded against accused 1 to 8 by Addl.Police Commissioner. Further he has submitted that the
applicant was not present at the scene of occurrence. Despite claimed, the prosecution could not produce CCTV footage and CDR to verify this claim.
Now, investigation is over and separate (additional) charge sheet against accused 9 to 14 has
been furnished. Hence, accused be released on bail.
5. The learned APP has submitted that the plea of ‘alibi’ has no relevance at this stage. There are statement of witnesses Raja, Raj, Pramod and Ratan who had seen the applicant while committing the offence. Besides, there is confession statement of accused 5 & 10 under section 18 of the Act. Hence, application be rejected.
6.On going through the copy of F.I.R. lodged by Laxmi Dinesh Pande, it is conspicuous that on 04.09.2021 at 9.20 p.m. while she was accompanied with her son, Rohit at her shop ‘Suraj Nashikroad, one Collection’ Sidhya behind Anuradha Dhaneshwar with Talkies, his accompaniments had been there and two of them caught hold Rohit and one pointed a sword at his throat. While Sidhya removed sickle and ransacked an amount of Rs.5200/ from the cash box.
When the husband rushed to the shop and questioned what was happened, on seeing him, the assailants fled away by two motor bikes.
7.Accused is unnamed in F.I.R. The record further shows that, the accused was apprehended on 18.05.2022 and remanded to P.C.R. till 23.05.2022 and thereafter remanded to judicial custody.
Further, it reveals that, the order of externment under section 56(1)(B) of Maharashtra Police Act
was served upon applicant on 01.02.2021, acting upon the confidential report. The role of accused committing breach of order of externment emanates from the statement of 4 witnesses.
8.In view of above, notwithstanding the sanction under section 23 of the Act is not accorded awarded against accused 9 to 14, inclusive of applicant by the Competent Authority, the accused seems to be historysheeter and dangerous to public at large. Therefore, in my view, it would not be apposite to enlarge him even on conditional bail. Hence, the order :
ORDER
The application stands rejected.
Digitally signed by VIKAS SHIVRUPRAO VIKAS SHIVRUPRAO KULKARNI Date: KULKARNI 2022.08.24
17:55:58 +0530 September 24, 2022. (Vikas S. Kulkarni) Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.