VIJAY JAWAHARLAL CHUG Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

(2.) Registration of Crime No. 295/2019 at Police Station Hudkeshwar, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 365, 201, 120-B, 212 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code , Section 3 [1][i][ii], 3[2], 3[4] of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act), Section 4 / 25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, provided a reason for the applicant to believe that he may be arrested in said crime containing non-bailable offences. Perceiving such apprehension, the applicant initially approached to the Special Judge, Nagpur designated under MCOC Act, for grant of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 18.06.2020. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has invoked the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court for grant of pre arrest bail in said crime.

(3.) Beside usual grounds, the applicant claimed bail by contending that statutory bar created under Section 21 [3] of the MCOC Act would not apply, since there is no prima facie material against him to connect him with the alleged crime. On merits, the impugned order is challenged by submitting that besides mere charge of harboring the main offender, which is punishable under Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no other allegation against the applicant. The learned Counsel would submit that though the applicant allegedly took the main accused and another assailant by his car to Amravati, however, he was totally unaware about the commission of murder of one Vijay Mohod by the co-accused. He would stress that there is total absence of mensria in the act of the applicant of transporting assailants to some other place, and therefore, the provisions of MCOC Act would not apply against him.