1 28 BA 1080.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1080/2026 (Niraj S/o Ashok Larokar Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Advocate with Mr. A.A. Korpenwar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. A. Badar, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 07/10/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.186/2025 registered with Police Station Kotwali, Dist. Nagpur city for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 3(5), 49, 238, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3(1)(i), (ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (“MCOCA”). 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 08/06/2025, the deceased, Ankit alias Rahul Pande, informed the complainant that he had received a phone call from Rohit Chandekar and that they were going to Lakdapul to collect the money lent by him. At about 11.00 p.m., the complainant’s daughter, Ravina, received a phone call from one Harshal Shahu, who informed her that three 2 28 BA 1080.26.odt persons, with the help of a knife, had assaulted Ankit alias Rahul and that Rahul had been admitted to Mayo Hospital. On receiving the call, the complainant, along with her daughter, went to Mayo Hospital and saw that her son had been killed. Upon enquiry, the people from the neighbourhood had informed her that her son had been killed with a knife by Rohit Chandekar, Vicky Chandekar and the applicant. Based on these allegations, the First Information Report was registered on 09/06/2025. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not involved in the alleged incident of murder. He submits that the incident took place on 08/06/2025 at about 10.30 p.m. So far as the First Information Report is concerned, it was registered by the mother of the deceased. The deceased is Ankit alias Rahul. It is alleged that on 08/06/2025 at about 7.30 p.m., one Rohit Chandekar called the deceased for collecting Rs.8,000/-, which had been lent by the deceased to Rohit Chandekar. When the deceased went to the spot, the present applicant, along with others, was present there. However, at the relevant time, the parents of the applicant came to the spot and took the applicant away from the said spot. According to the learned counsel, thereafter, the 3 28 BA 1080.26.odt incident of murder occurred and the main culprits are Rohit Chandekar and Vicky Chandekar, who inflicted blows with the help of a knife. Specifically, the allegations are against Rohit, and the other co-accused, Vicky. He invited my attention to the various statements, including the statements of the eyewitnesses. The statements of the eyewitnesses show that the applicant was not present when the actual incident of murder took place. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that there is no material against the applicant to connect him with the alleged crime of murder. He submits that the presence of the applicant prior to the commission of the murder, by itself, is not sufficient to connect the applicant with the alleged crime. So far as the antecedents against the applicant are concerned, in all the cases, the applicant has been released on bail. However, he submits that, so far as the invocation of MCOCA is concerned, the twin conditions are required to be satisfied. The satisfaction of the second condition would depend upon the first condition. Therefore, he submits that, considering the nature of the allegations against the applicant, the applicant may be released on bail. He has relied on the judgment of the this Court in the cases of Akshay Atmaram Rathod Vs. The State of 4 28 BA 1080.26.odt Maharashtra & ors. [Criminal Appeal No.786/2022 decided on 13/02/2023] and Mangesh Manik Kanchan & ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Bail Application No.1696 & 1930 of 2014 decided on 13/07/2015] Both judgments have been relied upon for the purpose of considering the grant of bail under MCOCA and determining the satisfaction of the twin conditions imposed under Section 21(4)(b) of the MCOCA. 5. Per contra, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that the applicant is a history- sheeter and has seven crimes registered against him. Considering the criminal track record of the applicant, the provisions of MCOCA have been invoked. The twin conditions provided under Section 21(4)(b) of the MCOCA have not been satisfied. It cannot be said that the applicant is not guilty of the crime of murder in the present case and, therefore, it is incumbent that the twin conditions should be satisfied; otherwise, bail cannot be granted. So far as the present case is concerned, from the beginning itself, the name of the applicant surfaces on record. In the First Information Report itself, the mother, who has registered the it, has disclosed the name of the applicant as being present on the spot. He further invited my attention to the 5 28 BA 1080.26.odt various statements, including the statement of Lokesh Thakur, who has stated that the present applicant called on the mobile phone of one Krishna Gujar Kalia and, on his phone, talked with the deceased and called him to collect the amount of Rs.8,000/-. Merely because the applicant was not present on the spot when the actual murder took place, that by itself would not absolve the present applicant. All the accused persons, including the present applicant, were present on the spot, and the present applicant had called the deceased to the spot for collection of the amount. Therefore, it is the present applicant who was instrumental in calling the deceased to the spot, and thereafter the murder took place. Under such circumstances, he submits that, considering the criminal history, the specific role of the applicant in the present crime, and the invocation of MCOCA, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions of both sides, it appears from the record that, so far as the main incident of the accused persons giving blows is concerned, the applicant was not present at that time, which can be gathered from the statements of the eyewitnesses. No doubt, so far as the call made by the present applicant is 6 28 BA 1080.26.odt concerned, that by itself is not sufficient to say that the applicant had called the deceased with an intention to cause harm to him. In fact, the said amount was payable by Rohit Chandekar to the deceased and not by the present applicant. It is further to be noted that, though in the First Information Report, the name of the applicant appears, even the First Information Report does not state that the applicant was present on the spot when the murder took place. On the contrary, a perusal of the statement of one Ayush Ingole shows that the applicant was taken away from the spot by his parents and thereafter the murder took place. Even otherwise, I do not find, in the entire investigation papers, any overt act or role played by the applicant, except making a call to one Krishna Gurjar Kalia. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, there is no adequate material to connect the applicant with the alleged crime of murder. So far as the invocation of MCOCA is concerned, it would be useful to refer to the two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. In the case of Akshay (supra), this Court observed in paragraph Nos. 24, 26 and 27, which read as under:- 24. In this regard our attention has also been invited to the observations of the learned Single 7 28 BA 1080.26.odt Judge of this Court in case of Mangesh Manik Kanchan and another vrs. State of Maharashtra- MANU/MH/1874/2015: 2016 [1] Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 350, wherein it has been held that one cannot be detained in anticipation and apprehension for the offence which he may commit in future. There is no mechanism for the Court to record a finding that the accused would not commit any offence in future, therefore, the said requirement is to be read in the light of the first requirement which relates to the adequacy of material. In that light once again we had a relook to the material collected against accused. The said material does not travel beyond mere suspicion. Needless to say that under criminal law, the concept of proof is stricter as the guilt is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The material falls short to reasonably believe the guilt of accused. In said context on mere anticipation liberty cannot be curtailed. 26. We are in agreement with the submission that the provisions of sub-clause [5] are to be read along with the condition embodied in clause 4[b] of Section 21 of the MCOCA. The prima facie requirement for grant of bail is about satisfaction of the Court that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of such offence. The provision is to be read on the canvass of earlier requirement. In above decision of State of Maharashtra [supra] [paragraph no. 63], the Supreme Court has explained that the object of 8 28 BA 1080.26.odt MCOCA is to prevent the organized crime, and there can be reason to deny bail if one has committed a similar offence once again, after being released on bail. The legislative intention is to desist a person from repeating the similar offence once again after his release on bail, therefore, one has to prima facie record a finding that in existing crime, the accused has committed similar offence once again. Liberty of a person shall not ordinarily be interfered with unless there exists convincing grounds. Sub- clause [5] of Section 21 of the MCOCA has to be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative object. 27. In above part of the order we have recorded our tentative finding that there is absence of material to reasonably believe that the accused is guilty of the charged offence. Reading of sub- section [5] in that context would not confine us from exercising our judicial discretion to grant ball. The Court is not expected to mechanically reject the bail only because the accused was arrested under MCOCA, while was on bail. Harmonious reading of the provision would achieve the legislative intent by maintaining right balance. In case of Mangesh (supra), this Court has also observed in para No.16 which reads as under:- 16. Let us advert to Section 21(4B) of the Act which states that Court shall satisfy itself regarding two conditions while granting bail. 9 28 BA 1080.26.odt The first condition is that the Court has to satisfy that there are reasonable grounds that the person has not committed a particular offence for which the crime is registered. Then, section speaks of a second condition that he is not likely to commit offence while on bail. Thus, Section 21(4) also contemplates that there should be commission of an offence and the material placed and allegations made against the accused in that offence (such offence) has to be taken into account by the Judge first and thereafter the Judge has to consider second circumstance that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. There is always more chance of a criminal having very bad record of many cases on his account is likely to commit offence in future, however he cannot be detained in anticipation and apprehension in the prison for the offence he may commit in future. There should be actual commission of offence by him in the present. A past of a criminal cannot be linked always with his future when he has not committed any offence in the present. Otherwise he would be completely denied the opportunity to improve. This is against a basic principle of the criminal jurisprudence. For example, Under the Evidence Act, bad character of an accused is not a relevant fact. A person may commit a crime and he be convicted for the same, however, he cannot be labelled as a member of the gang throughout his life. Such member may repent for his act and may leave 10 28 BA 1080.26.odt that gang, however, it is difficult to ascertain a time of his leaving gang. Sometimes repentance may be a compelling factor for a human being to withdraw from criminal activity. Thus, there is a more possibility that a person having a bad criminal record may commit offence in future if released on bail, however, that is not the condition which can be considered first in interpreting Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act but the Court has to consider the material allegations against the applicants available in respect of that particular crime committed in the present..” 7. Considering the above observations of this Court, in order to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 21(4) of the MCOCA, it could be said that, considering the above factors, the applicant is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged and, secondly, that the applicant cannot be detained in anticipation or apprehension that he may commit an offence in future. There should be an actual commission of the offence by him. A person's past criminal antecedents cannot always be linked to his future conduct when he has not committed any offence in the present case. Otherwise, he would be completely denied the opportunity to improve. This is against the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, as observed by this 11 28 BA 1080.26.odt Court in the case of Mangesh (Supra). Therefore, considering the above observations, in my opinion, the applicant has satisfied the twin conditions and would be entitled to bail. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) Criminal application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant/accused Niraj S/o Ashok Larokar be released on bail in connection with Crime No.186/2025 registered with Police Station Station Kotwali, Dist. Nagpur city for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 3(5), 49, 238, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 3(1)(i), (ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (“MCOCA”) on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. (iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer. (v) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every 12 28 BA 1080.26.odt date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial on even a single date or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. 8. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. 9. The observation of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2026 18:13:27