SAQUIB ABDUL HAMID NACHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is accused no. 1 in M.C.O.C. Special Case No. 10 of 2012, pending before the Special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as "M.C.O.C. Act"), Thane. There are totally six accused -including the applicant - in the said case, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 153A, 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offences punishable under the Arms Act, apart from the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act. Additionally, the applicant and the other accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as amended till 2008 (hereinafter referred to as U.A.P. Act). By the present application, the applicant seeks bail.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Mubin Solkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. V.S. Mhaispurkar, learned APP for the State. I have also heard Mr. Subhash Jha, learned counsel who sought intervention in the matter on behalf of the First Informant to oppose the grant of bail.

(3.) AFTER considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, the said co -accused Shamil Nachan and Aakif Nachan were released on bail. The applicability of the provisions of the M.C.O.C. Act and the U.A.P. Act was felt highly doubtful while deciding the said bail application. How far the rigours of the provisions of Section 21(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act would go and how the restrictive phrase therein should be interpreted was also considered and discussed while granting bail to the co -accused Shamil Nachan. These aspects are common with respect to the case of applicant, and that of the said co -accused, who as aforesaid, have been released on bail.