SARHAN BIN ALI ALKASERI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent State.

(2.) The applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 0119 of 2022 registered Police Station Vimantal, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Ss. 302. 120(B), 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ( hereinafter 'MCOCA Act).

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant would argue that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show the nexus of the applicant with the alleged incident. One burnt motorbike was found to the police. The police procured its chasis number and it was transpired that it was a motorbike registered in the name of the brother of the applicant. His brother has not arraigned as an accused. However, the police recorded his supplementary statement and collected incorrect evidence that on the day of the incident the applicant used his bike to commit the present crime. He also referred to the first information report lodged by his brother for the theft of the said motorbike long before the present incident. Referring to this fact, he has vehemently argued that the evidence as regards the use of the said bike, collected against the applicant is not sufficient to show the nexus of the applicant with the crime. He also vehemently assailed the statement of the travel booking agent urging that except his statement on booking two tickets by the applicant, nothing incriminating material is available on record against the applicant. The applicant is a cloth merchant, so he is a regular customer of traveling agent and he always has to travel for purchasing clothes to Mumbai. He further argued that the prosecution did not file CDR along with charge sheet though there is mention about the enquiry about the contacts of the applicant with the main accused. Therefore adverse inference may be drawn.