SIDHARTH RAMESH JANMEJAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties. Perused the affidavit in reply and the additional affidavit as well as the record of the case. The Applicant was arrested on 9th November 2003 by the Police of Crime Branch, Thane. The Police had received tip on the basis of which car driven by the Applicant, Maruti Zen bearing No. MH-04/AW-7213, which was proceeding towards Vashi by Kalwa - Belapur Road, was searched and several boxes containing medicines were found in the car, worth Rs.4,25,582.00. In addition, two different number plates of car were also found in the car. The accused was unable to give satisfactory explanation about the source from where the medicines were procured or regarding the two different number plates. Besides, it was noted that the bilti found with the accused in the name of Shailesh Enterprises was a forged document. Accordingly, he was arrested and the articles were seized. The police registered Crime No. 184 of 2003 and proceeded with the investigation. During investigation, it was revealed that one Messrs. Picaso Health Care Company, Daman, a medicine manufacturing company, had manufactured some of the medicines, which were found with the accused. Besides medicines worth Rs.12,76,000.00 of that company were stolen away in an incident of robbery, which had taken place in the company on 31st October 2003 by using a truck, in respect of which Crime No. 205 of 2003 was registered at Daman Police Station. During investigation, it was further revealed that the applicant, in collusion with the co-accused, was dealing in business of sale of medicines illegally by using the forged labels of famous brands to the medicines of inferior quality and was engaged in preparing stickers, bottles, packing material and foils and get the medicines manufactured. It was revealed that the co-accused Zulabhai was helping the applicant in the manufacture of medicines, licensed medicines. The medicines were manufactured as per the order given by accused Vijay and then the medicines, after affixing the labels, were sent for sale to co-accused Rani alias Raghavendra Sunderdas. The investigation revealed that the accused were engaged in unlawful activities jointly and committed the offence of gaining pecuniary benefits and they worked as a group. Similar types of offences were registered against the Applicant and other members of the group at various places. The affidavit filed before this Court reveals that in all 8 offences have been registered in which the applicant and the other accused are implicated besides the present offence. Details of those offences are given against the crime number in respect of each case. In view of the materials collected during the investigation, the investigating agency sought sanction of the Additional Commissioner of Police to invoke provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (for short, "the MCOCA") against the applicant and the other accused involved in the present crime. Accordingly, sanction has been obtained and offence of MCOCA has been registered in connection with the present crime against the applicant and other accused. The co-accused had applied for bail before the provisions of the MCOCA were applied to the present crime and were released on bail. Even after the provisions of MCOCA were applied, the co-accused came to be released on bail. The applicant, however, applied for bail before the Court below only after the charge sheet came to be filed. That application has been rejected by the Special Judge, MCOCA Court at Thane, vide order dated April 4, 2004. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Court by way of present bail application.

(2.) IN all, four submissions were canvassed before this Court. The first contention was that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail, as the investigating agency failed to file charge sheet within the statutory period as required under section 167 of the Cr.P.C., before applying the provisions of MCOCA as well as even thereafter. Inasmuch as the applicant was arrested on 9th November 2003, whereas the provisions of MCOCA were applied on 29th January 2004 and 90 days were completed on 7th February 2004. Till then, no charge sheet was filed. However, an application was filed on 7th February 2004 presented by the District Government Pleader and not the Public Prosecutor, at whose instance, time to file charge sheet came to be extended. The argument on behalf of the applicant is that the extension so granted was inappropriate and could not have been granted at the instance of the District Government Pleader. It is, therefore, argued that the extension granted will have to be ignored in which case it follows that the charge sheet was not filed within 90 days, for which reason the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The next contention canvassed before this Court is that the provisions of MCOCA have no application to the fact situation of the present case. The third contention is that other accused arrested in connection with the present offence have already been released on bail by the trial Court and on the basis of parity, the applicant also deserves to be released on bail. It is lastly contended that the applicant has permanent place of business as well as permanent place of abode and is willing to abide by any condition that will be imposed by this Court.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival submissions, I shall first deal with the contention regarding release of the applicant on the ground of default of the investigating agency in filing charge sheet within the specified time. Although this contention was raised by Mr. Memon during the arguments, but after the learned A.P.P. replied this contention, in the rejoinder Mr. Memon fairly accepted that this ground cannot be pressed into service in the fact situation of the present case. He fairly accepts that the application preferred by the District Government Pleader can be said to be sufficient compliance and in any case, since the charge sheet has been filed within the extended time granted by the Court, the Court will have to examine the application for bail on merits. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to dilate further on this contention.