MANOJ RAMESH MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant is arrested by Bund Garden Police station in connection with C. R. No. 135 of 2002 for offences punishable under section 120-B, 255, 34, 109 of Indian Penal Code read with 3 (l) (ii) , 3 (2) , 3 (4) , 3 (5) and 4 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA for short). The applicant is arrested on 11th June, 2003. He applied before the Special Judge for bail. Needless to state that investigation in the said C. R. culminated in Special case No. 2 of 2003 before the Special Judge, Maharashtra Control of Organised crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) , Pune. The applicant's (Accused No. 42) application for bail was numbered as Exh. 1215 and placed before the Special Judge. After hearing submissions on behalf of applicant's Advocate so also that of the prosecution, by his order dated 10th January, 2006 he dismissed the same.

(2.) This is how the present application is filed.

(3.) Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this application has contended that taking all allegations against the applicant as true, the role of the applicant in the crime is subsidiary and peripheral in nature. He has not been accused of dealing with fake stamps at all. There is no accusation of the applicant being involved in printing, manufacturing or disposing of the same. Therefore, section 3 (2) of MCOCA is not attracted. Mr. Mundargi has taken me through para 26 of the charge sheet and contended that the applicant and the prime accused Telgi came in contact with each other in connection with their activities of import and export of spices and pulses. One company by name metro Corporation was set up by prime accused Telgi, which was involved in import and export of pulses through State Trading Corporation. The applicant has helped and assisted in booking the consignments which are to be routed through s. T. C. There is no role played by him in the fake stamp scam. In any event, at the most he could be said to be a facilitator. In such circumstances, applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.