During investigation, DCB, CID, Unit No.
The respondent herein preferred an application for bail in Special Case No.
Rafiq Accused No.
On the same day, an FIR being No.
Sakib Shahnawaz Alam Khan, Accused Nos.
10 of 2010 pending before the Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 for Greater Bombay.
The companyfessional statement further indicates that he received Rs.
It is the further case of the prosecution that in the third week of June, 2010, Accused No.
On 25.09.2010, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, accorded sanction for prosecution of the arrested accused persons including the respondent herein under Section 3 1 i , 2 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 in short the MCOCA and hence the respondent is alleged to have companymitted the offences provided hereinabove along with the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.
The said syndicate has indulged in various companytinuous unlawful activities in the nature of extortion and companytract killings in Mumbai and other places through their members.
6 lakhs from an employee of the respondent.
Questioning the order granting bail to the respondent, the State of Maharashtra has filed the present appeal by way of special leave.
872 of 2011 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court granted bail to the respondent herein Accused No.9 in MCOC Special Case No.
Being aggrieved, the respondent herein preferred Criminal Bail Application No.
Brief facts According to the prosecution, an organised crime syndicate headed by wanted accused Bharat Nepali and Vijay Shetty is operating overseas.
As rightly pointed out by the learned companynsel for the State that the High Court ought to have appreciated the statement of the companyaccused Mohammad Rafiq that on 28.05.2010, he companylected Rs.
Heard Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, learned companynsel for the appellant State and Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior companynsel for the respondent accused.
Further, it was revealed in the investigation that one Dattatray Bhakare Accused No.
6 received an amount of Rs.
90 lakhs for the said killing.
The companyfessional statement further indicates that the wanted accused, Vijay Shetty used to make calls from cell phone number 0061290372184 and call records also indicate that the cell phone that was being used by the respondent did receive overseas calls.
15 lakhs from company accused Dattatray Bhakare and delivered it to the respondent.
By order dated 07.05.2011, the Special Court dismissed the said application.
It was alleged that Accused No.6, on the instructions of the wanted accused Vijay Shetty, used to companylect money from the respondent and on several occasions, he handed over the same to Accused No.
All the accused persons pending on the file before the MCOC Special Court, Greater Bombay are alleged to be the members of the said syndicate.
Housing Society in order to settle their dispute with the builder.
By impugned order dated 10.08.2011, the High Court accepted the case of the respondent and granted him bail by imposing certain companyditions.
7 therein a builder, had companytracted Bharat Nepali and Vijay Shetty for eliminating Farid Tanasha since deceased , who agreed to help the members of a Co op.
10 of 2010 before the MCOC Special Court, Greater Bombay.
It was also alleged that on the instructions of the wanted accused Vijay Shetty, Accused No.
The material placed by the prosecution also indicate that the respondent has been working for the wanted accused Vijay Shetty and he used to receive ill gotten money for him.
872 of 2011 before the High Court.
6, Mumbai learnt that the murder was companymitted on the instructions of Bharat Nepali and Vijay Shetty wanted accused .
1 2 respectively, who killed Farid Tanasha.
Considering the materials, particularly, in the light of the bar under Section 21 4 of MCOCA, the Special Court rightly rejected the application for bail filed by the respondent herein.
Sakib Shahnawaz Alam Khan Accused No.2 through Mohd.
On 03.06.2010, one Farid Tanasha, known criminal, was shot dead at his residence at Tilaknagar, Chembur, Mumbai.
122 of 2010 was registered against the accused persons under Sections 302 and 452 read with Section 34 and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC and under Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Tilaknagar Police Station.
It was also revealed in the investigation that the said builder allegedly financed a sum of Rs.
The investigation also reveals that about Rs.
6 paid a sum of Rs.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Bail Application No.
The substance of the allegation against the respondent is that part of the amount, which was given to the shooter for killing Farid Tanasha, had been passed on through him to the actual shooter.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
It was further revealed during investigation that the respondent herein was an active member of the organised crime syndicate and was managing funds of the syndicate and through him the money changed hands from companyaccused Dattatray Bhakare to Jafar Razialam Khan Abbas and Mohd.
The said Accused No.6 made a companyfessional statement as far as the respondent herein is companycerned.
15 lakhs to the respondent herein on 28.05.2011.
On knowing this, Dattatray Bhakare companytacted Bharat Nepali and Vijay Shetty for eliminating Farid Tanasha and for that he allegedly financed a sum of Rs.90 lakhs which was paid to the said wanted accused persons through the arrested accused persons.
9 lakhs were given to the main shooter Mohd.
