Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal case registered as Crime No.350 of 2021 at Baramati Taluka Police Station for offences under Sections 307, 120B, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3(25)(27), 4(25) of the Arms Act, and later Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOCA). The dispute had political overtones in Baramati, Pune, involving rival local groups led by the complainant's husband and Prashant Popatrao More. On 1 June 2021, Akash More, son of Prashant More, along with an unknown person, allegedly fired on the complainant's husband, causing serious injuries. The complainant, an elected Zilla Parishad member, was an eyewitness. Police arrested several accused, seized weapons, and invoked MCOCA after obtaining approval under Section 23(1)(a) on 9 June 2021. The petitioner, Jaydeep Dilip Taware, was arrested on 6 July 2021 as an alleged member of the crime syndicate headed by Prashant More. Initially remanded to police custody, he was later sent to magisterial custody. On 21 July 2021, the investigating officer submitted a report under Section 169 CrPC stating that investigation did not disclose the petitioner's complicity in organised crime; the statement of co-accused under Section 18 MCOCA did not implicate him as a member of a crime syndicate; and call detail records showed his location did not match co-accused at the time of the attack. The petitioner sought release, and on 28 July 2021 the Additional Sessions Judge granted interim bail. The complainant filed a protest petition, and on 16 August 2021 the Additional Sessions Judge accepted the protest petition and rejected the Section 169 report. The petitioner challenged that order by way of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC. The core legal issues raised were whether the Additional Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to entertain a protest petition against a Section 169 report, whether the court could release an accused under Section 169 CrPC, and whether the rejection of the investigating officer's report was sustainable. The provided extract of the judgment does not include the High Court's final analysis or operative order; therefore, the ultimate decision and ratio decidendi are not available from the text supplied. The case involved interpretation of Section 169 CrPC, the scope of protest petitions, and the evidentiary threshold for continuing detention under MCOCA.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Report under Section 169 CrPC - Power of Court to Release Accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 169 - Investigating officer submitted a report under Section 169 CrPC stating that investigation did not disclose the petitioner's complicity in organised crime or under the Penal Code and sought his release; the complainant opposed release on the ground that the Court is not empowered under Section 169 CrPC to release an accused on bail; the Additional Sessions Judge initially granted interim bail on 28 July 2021 and subsequently accepted the protest petition and rejected the Section 169 report on 16 August 2021 (Paras 11-14).
B) Criminal Law - Organised Crime - Approval and Membership - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999, Sections 23(1)(a), 18 - Prosecution sought approval under Section 23(1) of MCOCA based on the accused's criminal antecedents, and approval was granted on 9 June 2021; however, the investigating officer reported that the statement of co-accused recorded under Section 18 MCOCA did not disclose the petitioner's membership of a crime syndicate, and call detail records did not match co-accused locations (Paras 5, 11).
C) Constitution - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 and Section 482 CrPC - Constitution of India, Article 227; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - The writ petition invoked the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 read with Section 482 CrPC to challenge the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 16 August 2021 rejecting the Section 169 report and accepting the protest petition (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in accepting the protest petition and rejecting the investigating officer's report under Section 169 CrPC; whether the court is empowered under Section 169 CrPC to release an accused on bail; whether the order dated 16 August 2021 rejecting the Section 169 report is sustainable; whether the investigation disclosed the petitioner's complicity in organised crime under MCOCA
Law Points
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 169 CrPC
- judicial review of investigating officer's report
- protest petition against Section 169 report
- interim bail
- organised crime
- criminal antecedents
- Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA
- Section 18 MCOCA
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (10) 26
WRIT PETITION NO.3207 OF 2021
Mr. Harshad Nimbalkar with Mr. Satyam H. Nimbalkar and Mr. Sachin Wagh for the Petitioner; Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Nilesh M. Wable for Respondent No.2; Mr. A.D. Khamkhedkar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State
The State of Maharashtra, Rohini Raviraj Taware, Sub-divisional Police Officer Baramati Division, Pune Rural Pune, Inspector General of Police Kolhapur Range Kolhapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution and Section 482 CrPC challenging Additional Sessions Judge's order dated 16 August 2021 rejecting Section 169 CrPC report and accepting protest petition in MCOCA case.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing/setting aside of the order dated 16 August 2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which rejected the investigating officer's report under Section 169 CrPC and accepted the complainant's protest petition, thereby continuing proceedings against him.
Filing Reason
The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the complainant's protest petition and rejected the investigating officer's report under Section 169 CrPC, despite the investigating officer stating that no complicity of the petitioner in organised crime was disclosed.
Previous Decisions
Investigating officer submitted report under Section 169 CrPC on 21 July 2021; Additional Sessions Judge granted interim bail on 28 July 2021; complainant filed protest petition on 5 August 2021; Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 16 August 2021 accepted protest petition and rejected Section 169 report.
Issues
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in accepting the protest petition and rejecting the investigating officer's report under Section 169 CrPC
Whether the court is empowered under Section 169 CrPC to release an accused on bail
Whether the order dated 16 August 2021 rejecting the Section 169 report is sustainable
Whether the investigation disclosed the petitioner's complicity in organised crime under MCOCA
Submissions/Arguments
Before the Additional Sessions Judge, the investigating officer sought release of the petitioner based on the Section 169 CrPC report stating no complicity in organised crime.
The complainant opposed release on the ground that the Court is not empowered under Section 169 CrPC to release the accused on bail.
The petitioner sought release in view of the report filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 CrPC.
Prosecution initially sought police custody alleging petitioner's involvement in organised crime and need to extract information.
Judgment Excerpts
This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) challenges the order dated 16th August, 2021 in Crime No.350 of 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
On 21st July, 2021, Investigating Officer in the report under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C., informed the learned Sessions Judge, that investigation has not disclosed petitioner’s complicity in the offence of Organised Crime, either in form of funding the Crime Syndicate for promoting the unlawful activity; nor statement of co-accused, Rahul @ Rebel Yadav recorded under Section 18 of the MCOCA disclosed complicity of the petitioner, as a ‘member’ of ‘Crime Syndicate’ or in offence under Penal Code.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune accepted the protest petition of the complainant and rejected report of the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 16th August, 2021.
Procedural History
Crime No.350 of 2021 registered at Baramati Taluka Police Station under Sections 307, 120B, 504, 506 IPC and Arms Act; accused arrested on 1 June 2021; approval under Section 23(1)(a) MCOCA granted on 9 June 2021; statement of injured recorded on 19 June 2021; petitioner arrested on 6 July 2021 and produced before Additional Sessions Judge, remanded to police custody till 14 July 2021; magisterial custody sought; on 21 July 2021 investigating officer submitted Section 169 CrPC report stating no complicity; petitioner moved application Exhibit 10; Additional Sessions Judge granted interim bail on 28 July 2021; complainant filed protest petition on 5 August 2021; Additional Sessions Judge accepted protest petition and rejected Section 169 report on 16 August 2021; petitioner filed present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 169, Section 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 307, Section 120B, Section 504, Section 506
- Arms Act, 1959: Section 3(25)(27), Section 4(25)
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999: Section 18, Section 23(1), Section 23(1)(a), Section 3(1)(ii), Section 3(4)
