Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shri Arif Riyaz Ghodeshwar, filed an appeal under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) against the rejection of his bail application by the Special Judge, MCOCA, Pune. The appellant was one of the accused in FIR No. 80 of 2017 registered for offences under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of MCOCA, along with offences under the Bombay Police Act. The incident occurred on 31.03.2017, where the appellant and other accused allegedly assaulted the victim with swords, sickles, and choppers, causing 19 injuries, leading to death due to hemorrhage and shock. The appellant was arrested on 04.04.2017 and had been in custody since. The appellant argued that his name was not mentioned in the FIR, no overt act was attributed to him, and MCOCA was wrongly applied as he had no criminal antecedents and was merely the son-in-law of accused No.1. The State opposed, contending that the appellant's presence was established and that in an unlawful assembly, presence alone is sufficient. The court, after hearing both sides, held that although the appellant's name was not in the FIR, the material on record indicated his presence at the scene. The court noted that in cases of unlawful assembly causing death, it is not necessary to attribute an overt act to each accused; presence is sufficient to deny bail. The court also observed that the applicability of MCOCA could not be decided at the bail stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's bail was rejected.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail under MCOCA - Section 12 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 - Presence at Scene - The appellant sought bail contending that his name was not in the FIR and no overt act was attributed to him. The court held that in a case of unlawful assembly causing death, presence of the accused at the scene is sufficient to deny bail, as the material on record prima facie shows involvement. (Paras 1-7) B) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly - Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Overt Act Not Required - The court held that for an accused charged with being part of an unlawful assembly, it is not necessary that an overt act be attributed to each member; presence alone can sustain the charge at the bail stage. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, when his name was not in the FIR and no overt act is attributed to him.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Special Judge, MCOCA, Pune dated 27.08.2018 rejecting bail is upheld.
Law Points
- Bail under MCOCA
- Unlawful assembly
- Presence at scene
- Overt act not necessary
- Prima facie involvement
