LexMANOJ RAMESH MEHTA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 $.C.R. 669 ~ MANOJ RAMESH MEHTA A ' v. ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA -(Criminal Appeal No. 1868 of 2008) NOVEMBER 25, 2008 6 "f' [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ., R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ""' BAIL - Accused arrested in 'Telgi case' on the charges u/ss 120-B, 255134, 109 /PC rlw ss. 3(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(5) and 4 of c Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act - Trial pending - Application for bail rejected by High Court - HELD: The plea of accused applicant that his involvement was only peripheral cannot be accepted - High Court has rightly held that a prima facie case u/s 3(2), MCOCA is made out against D accused-appellant - This is not a fit case for interference with _,; order of High Court, particularly having regard to s.21(4) of ~ MCOCA - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 - s. 21(4). The appellant was arrested in connection with 'Telgi E case' of counterfeiting stamps/stamp paper, for commission of offences punishable u/ss 120-8, 255/34, 109 IPC read with ss. 3(1 )(ii), 3(2), 3(5) and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999. His ' ) application for bail having been rejected by the High F, + Court, he filed the instant appeal contending that the role attributed to him was limited to alleged helping 'AKL Telgi' In his legitimate business by booking consignments which were imported through State Trading Corporation. It was submitted that the case against him was only of a G peripheral involvement for which maximum punishment r would be three years and he had already spent a longer period in jail; therefore, the High Court ought to have released him on bail. l 669 H 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1 ' ' I A Dismissing the appeal, the Court -1 HELD: The claim that the involvement of the appellant was only peripheral cannot be accepted. The High Court, on examination of the material, was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out u/s 3.(2) of the B Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999. The material on record, prima facie, shows that though the ~ appellant was not directly connected with the printing and selling of the fake stamps, he was associated with ~ 'Telgi' and had abetted andfacilitated the commission of c the organized crime, and he had also aided and.assisted in the money-laundering operations and attempted to interfere with the witnesses on behalf of 'Telgi' and his family members. There is also prima facie mate.rial to show that the payment for the purchase of printing D machine for 'Telgi's' illegitimate activities was routed through the appellant. Under section 3(2) of MCOC Act, the minimum sentence is five years and the maximum can be imprisonment for life. In the circumstances, this is not '- a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court, -t E particularly, having regard to the provisions of Section 21 (4) of MCOC Act. [Para 6] [672-G-H; 673-A-B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal App.eal No. 1868 of 2008. F From the final Judgment and Order dated 23 .. 1,2007 of the Hi9h Court of Judicature at Bombay ·in Crl. Application No. /.. " 1795 of 2006. -.+ Shekhar .Naphad~. Vimal Chandra $. Dave for the Appellant. G Sushil Kumar, Sandhya Goswami and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents. I The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1 H R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard parties. MANOJ RAMESH MEHTA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 671 [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.] t 2. The appellant is Accused No. 42 in Special Case No. A 2/2003, on the file. of Special Judge, MCOCA, Pune, arising from CR No. 135/2002, Bund Garden Police Station, Pune. He challenges the order dated 23.1.2007 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Application No. 1795 of 2006, rejecting his application for bail. 8 ~ 3. The appellant was arrested on 11.6.2003 in connection ~ ~ with an FIR relating to counterfeiting stamps/stamp papers (Telgi case) for offences under sections 120(8), 255, 34, 109 of IPC read with sections 3(1 )(ii), 3(2), 3(5) and section 4 o.f c Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 ['MCOC Act' for short]. The appellant alleges that an FIR was registere~ on 7.6.2002 and a charge-sheet was filed on 3.9.2002; that the. charges framed were set aside by the High Court with a direction to frame fresh charges; that a fresh charge-sheet was D filed on 15.9.2003; that the prosecution has cited eight hundre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.