MAYUR SHIVAJI BHOSALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been moved by the applicant under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in C.R. No. 168 of 2020 registered with Wakad Police Station, District- Pune for the offences punishable under Ss. 395, 397, 364(A), 341, 342 of the Indian Penal Code, Ss. 37(i)(3) r/w 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, Sec. 4(25) of the Arms Act and Ss. 3(1)(ii), 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act ( 'MCOCA ' for short).

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that while the informant along with his friends was returning after dinner from a hotel at about 10-45 p.m. in his Ciaz car, one purple colour Swift car bearing registration No.MA-14 HD 8365 came in front of his car and blocked them. Six persons got down, abused and threatened the informant and told that the informant 's car had dashed one person and dragged the informant out of his car. The prosecution alleges that the informant was forced to sit in their Swift car and was driven towards Dange Chowk, Kelwadi Phata, Jyotiba Nagar, Rahatani Road, Pune. The prosecution further alleges that in the car the informant was threatened and beaten by one of them who claimed himself as Ankit Choudhary, a known offender, and then forced the informant to withdraw moneys from ATM. Even informant 's friend, namely, Sumit Panchal was forced to withdraw moneys from the ATM. In all Ankit Choudhary extorted total amount of Rs.25,000.00 from the informant and his friend and later on dropped them to their car. The informant accordingly lodged the First Informant Report (FIR).

(3.) Mr. Shirke, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that the sanctioning authority without application of mind granted sanction despite their being no sufficient and necessary material to justify the invocation of provisions of MCOC Act. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the applicant is a member of crime syndicate. No recovery has been done from the applicant. There are no criminal antecedents. Investigation is over. In such circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, argued learned APP.