1 M.C.O.C.

   NO.5/2018
(CNR No.MHTH01002827­2018)
                                                       (Order below Exh.40)

MHTH010028272018

M.C.O.C. CASE NO.5/2018
(CNR No.MHTH01002827­2018)

Anita Mukund Mhasane 

V/s.

  State of Maharashtra 
 
 ORDER BELOW BAIL APPLICATION EXH.40

[1] Accused   Anita   Mukund   Mhasane   has   filed   this

application for bail U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.  

[2] Prosecution case in short is as under:
On 27/10/2017 at about 12.00 of noon the informant
came back to her flat from Gym. At that time she alongwith her
mother had been to the house.  Somebody had rang the door bell.
When she opened the door it was found that one delivery boy
holding  parcel in  the name of the father of the informant was
there.  At that time the said delivery boy asked the informant for
water   to   drink.     Therefore,   the   informant   proceeded   towards
kitchen.  The said delivery boy followed her and took out revolver
and pointed out the same towards her and threatened her not to
move.     Therefore,   the   informant   and   her   mother   stood   there.
Immediately thereafter 4 other persons entered into the house of
the   informant   and   taken   away   cash   and   gold   and   silver
 2 M.C.O.C.   NO.5/2018
(CNR No.MHTH01002827­2018)
                                                       (Order below Exh.40)

ornaments worth of Rs.2,09,36,000/­.  The incident was reported
to   Vashi   Police   Station.     Accordingly   crime   vide   C.R.No.I­
392/2017 came to be registered.  

[3] During the course of investigation it was revealed that
the present applicant is the leader of gang run by all the accused
persons.  She was actively participated in hatching of conspiracy.
Therefore,   she   came   to   be   arrested.   Now   she   is   in   judicial
custody.  Hence, she has filed this application for grant of bail.

[4] Ld.Adv. for the applicant/accused submitted that the
applicant came to be arrested on 30/10/2017.  At the time of the
incident the applicant was not present on the spot.  Nothing has
been recovered from the applicant.   The seized jewellery is not
connected with the offence. There is inordinate delay in recording
statements of the witnesses.   There is only statement of accused
Suresh Bachhewar who states that he received money from the
accused persons.   Exaggerations are common in the prosecution
case, but the same cannot be an impediment to grant bail.   She is
permanent   resident   of   Thane.   Since   more   than   two   years   the
applicant is in jail. She is falsely implicated.  She is ready to abide
all the terms and conditions which will be imposed by the court.
On these grounds Ld.Adv. for the applicant prayed for grant of
bail.     In support of his arguments he relied upon the case law,
Babu Singh and others V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978,
Supreme Court 527.  
 3 M.C.O.C.   NO.5/2018
(CNR No.MHTH01002827­2018)
                                                       (Order below Exh.40)

[5] On   the   other   hand,   learned   Spl.P.P.   submitted   that

nature   of   the   offence   is  serious.    Applications  for   bail   filed   by
other accused persons  were  rejected by the predecessor of this
court.     Thereafter,   Hon'ble   High   Court   has   also   rejected   bail
applications of some of the accused.  It is the main allegation of
the prosecution is that the accused persons hatched conspiracy to
commit dacoity  and to take away money and ornaments from the
house of the informant.   For that purpose they collected deadly
weapons   like   pistols   and   knives.     There   are   statements   of   the
witnesses   and   CCTV   Footage   which   would   showed   that   the
applicant was involved in the conspiracy.  The I.O. has seized an
amount of Rs.8 Lakh from witness Suresh Bachhewar with whom
the informant kept  the stolen property.   So also an amount of
Rs.1,69,000/­ has been seized by the I.O. from the office of the
applicant.  Confession of 3 accused have been recorded U/Sec.18
of   the   MCOC   Act,   wherein   they   confessed   the   guilt   and
participation about the applicant.   CDR and SDR of the accused
persons and the present applicant shows that they were in contact
with each other.   Moreover, the I.O. has seized Rs.15,50,000/­
from the brother of accused Arun Telang.   Thus,   there is prima
facie evidence to show the involvement of the  applicant   in the
present   crime.   Required   ingredients   for   application   of   the
provisions   of   the   MCOC   Act   have   been   complied   with   by   the
prosecution. In the circumstances, if the applicant is released on
bail possibility of his absconding, tampering with the prosecution
evidence   and   repetition   of   similar   crime   on   the   part   of   the
 4 M.C.O.C.   NO.5/2018
(CNR No.MHTH01002827­2018)
                                                       (Order below Exh.40)

applicant cannot be ruled out. Therefore, as per Sec.21(4) of the
MCOC Act the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. On these
grounds, he prayed for rejection of the application.   

[6] On perusal the material placed on record it appears
that it is the main allegation of the prosecution that the accused
persons hatched conspiracy to  commit dacoity  and to take away
money and ornaments from the house of the informant.  For that
purpose   they   collected   deadly  weapons  like  pistols  and  knives.
There are statements of the witnesses and CCTV Footage which
show that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy.  The I.O.
has   seized   an   amount   of   Rs.8   Lakh   from   witness   Suresh
Bachhewar.  His statement show that the applicant kept the said
amount of money with him.     An amount of Rs.1,69,000/­ has
been   seized   by   the   I.O.   from   the   office   of   the   applicant.
Confession   of   3   accused   have   been   recorded   U/Sec.18   of   the
MCOC Act, wherein they confessed the guilt and explained about
the participation and role of the applicant in the crime.  The I.O.
has collected CDR and SDR of the phones of the applicant and the
accused persons which show that they were in contact with each
other.     Moreover,   the   I.O.   has   seized   Rs.15,50,000/­   from   the
brother   of   accused   Arun   Telang.     Thus,     there   is   prima   facie
evidence to show the involvement of the  applicant  in the present
crime.  Bail applications filed by other three accused persons have
been rejected by this court as well as by the Hon'ble High Court.  
 5 M.C.O.C.   NO.5/2018
(CNR No.MHTH01002827­2018)
                                                       (Order below Exh.40)

[7] Moreover, requisite ingredients for application of the
provisions of the MCOC Act and for other offences of Indian Penal
Code   have   been   made   out   by   the   prosecution.   Thus,   there   is
prima facie evidence against the applicant. In the circumstances,
if he is released on bail possibility of his absconding, tampering
with the prosecution evidence and repetition of similar crime on
the part of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Therefore, as per
Sec.21(4) of the MCOC Act the applicant is not entitled for grant
of bail. In the result, the application deserves to be rejected. I,
therefore, pass the following order : 
 
ORDER 
The application  is rejected.

Digitally signed
by Shamkant
Bhalchandra
Bahalkar
Date: 2020.02.17
14:40:27 +0530

Thane      ( S. B. Bahalkar )
Date :15/02/2020          Special Judge,
Under MCOV Act,Thane.