Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 411 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Shridhar Sumant Vagal
RESPONDENT:
State of Maharashtra & Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/03/2007
BENCH:
K G Balakrishnan & R V Raveendran
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5190/2006)
RAVEENDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
The appellant herein challenges the order dated 21.7.2006 passed by
the Bombay High Court in Crl. Application No.5350 of 2005, rejecting his
application for bail.
2. An FIR relating to counterfeit stamps and stamp papers (known as
Telgi case) was registered as C.R. No.135 of 2002 at Bund Garden Police
Station, Pune. A charge-sheet was filed on 3.9.2002 followed by a
supplementary chargesheet dated 25.11.2002. On 22.12.2002, approval was
granted for applying Sections 3(2), 3(5) and 24 of the Maharashtra Control
of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (’MCOC Act’ for short) in regard to the said
case. The Special Investigation Team (’SIT’ for short) created by the State
Government to investigate into the said counterfeit stamps case, filed a
charge-sheet under the MCOC Act, numbered as Special Case No.2 on
27.3.2003. Supplementary chargesheets were filed on 15.9.2003 and
3.2.2004. The investigation of the case with several connected cases, was
transferred to the CBI by order of this Court dated 15.3.2004.
3. The appellant was working as a Joint Commissioner of Police,
(Crime), Mumbai, from 21.3.2002 to 17.3.2003. The investigation disclosed
involvement of the appellant in the counterfeit stamp case, he was arrested
on 7.11.2003. He was arrayed as accused No.59 in the supplementary
chargesheet filed on 3.2.2004 and was charged with offences under Sections
120B, 216, 218, 221 IPC read with Sections 3(2), 3(5) and 24 of MCOC
Act, and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Ever since then he has been in custody, initially in Police custody for some
time and later in judicial custody, except for a short period when he was on
medical bail.
4. According to the case of the prosecution, the principal accused Abdul
Karim Telgi was involved in printing and distribution of counterfeit
stamps/stamp papers on a very large scale, and his organized crime
syndicate included printers, computer operators and even Police officials and
public servants; and R.S. Sharma (Commissioner of Police), the appellant
(Joint Commissioner of Police - Crime), Pradeep B. Sawant (Deputy
Commissioner of Police - Crime Detection), Dattatray Y. Dal (Inspector in
Charge of the Crime Branch Unit V) and Dilip Kamat (API, attached to
Crime Branch Unit-V) who are accused no. 60, 59, 65, 50 and 44
respectively, became part of such crime syndicate.
5. The allegations against the appellant, in brief, are : that when the
Commissioner requested him to verify certain addresses in Mumbai where
counterfeit stamps were reportedly stored, the appellant fabricated an anti-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
dated letter dated 10.6.2002 depicting that action was taken; that when large
quantity of counterfeit stamps and stamp papers were seized between
8.6.2002 and 15.6.2002 by Pune Police, senior Police Officers at Mumbai
including the appellant, with the intention of saving Telgi and his associates,
did not take immediate follow up action; that Dilip Kamat (A-44) in
connivance with the Appellant, Pradeep B. Sawant and Dattatray Y. Dal
hatched a criminal conspiracy to extract money from Telgi by agreeing to
facilitate his unlawful activities; that in pursuance of such scheme, the
appellant transferred the Christopher Murder case (Sahunagar Police Station
C.R. No.123/2001) involving Telgi and his accomplices to Crime Branch
Unit-V, to ensure that no other Police Station got custody of Telgi; that
when Crime Branch Unit-V obtained the custody of Telgi on 28.10.2002, he
was provided with all comforts and was allowed to carry on his unlawful
activities and take steps to dispose of his ill-gotten properties acquired from
out of the funds of the organized crime syndicate; that just before the Police
custody remand period of Telgi in Christopher Murder case was to expire on
28.11.2002, the appellant deliberately issued an order dated 22.11.2002
transferring several other cases against Telgi registered at other Police
Stations to Crime Branch Unit-V, so as to ensure that the custody of Telgi
remained with Crime Branch Unit-V, in particular with Dilip Kamat and
Dattatreya Dal so that Telgi could continue his illegal businesses
unhindered; that while in Police custody, Telgi was lodged in luxurious
hotels and even at his residence and permitted to visit his native place and
were provided access to telephone, mobile phone etc.; that even though the
cases relating to Telgi, having regard to the nature of offences involved, had
to be entrusted to the Economic Offences Wing, appellant transferred them
to Crime Branch Unit-V without the approval of the Police Commissioner;
that the appellant’s action was aimed at ensuring that the investigation was
done only by Crime Branch Unit-V, where Dilip Kamat was working, to
ensure deficiency in investigation to sabotage the case and permit Telgi and
his gang to wriggle out; that in view of the poor and perfunctory
investigation, in the cases transferred to Crime Branch Unit-V, Telgi was
granted bail in several cases; that the appellant as a member of the Special
Task Force formed by the Government had directed Police Inspector Bhat of
MCOC Cell to scrutinize the case papers of Telgi and submit a report, but
showed undue haste in transferring the cases to Crime Branch Unit-V,
without waiting for the reports which were submitted by Inspector Bhat on
28.11.2002 and 6.12.2002; that when Police Inspector Zahid of Cyber Cell,
Mumbai Crime Branch had submitted a good and sound report, instead of
correlating the report with other cases and motivating the officers, the
appellant expressed his displeasure with the inquiry by Zahid and suppressed
the findings/evidence; that the appellant with a view to help Telgi, gave
approval to fabricate the panchnama dated 12.1.2003 relating to the recovery
of huge quantity of counterfeit stamps/stamp papers at Bhiwandi at the
instance of accused Shabir Ahmed Shaikh, by describing him as an associate
of Ram Ratan Soni though he was a member of Telgi’s crime syndicate; and
that the Appellant received a huge sum (Rs.15 lakhs) from Telgi for various
favours shown.
6. The Special Judge, Pune, rejected Appellant’s bail application by
order dated 22.2.2005. The High Court rejected his application for bail by
order dated 21.7.2006. The High Court held that CBI had made out prima
facie the involvement of the appellant with Telgi’s crime syndicate and
therefore, it could not be said that the appellant was not guilty of offences
punishable under the MCOC Act.
7. Sri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the Telgi case;
and that he was neither a member of Telgi’s crime syndicate nor had he, in
any way, helped Telgi or his associates. Learned counsel for the appellant
also took us through the material in support of his contention that there were
no reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant was guilty of any
offence. He also submitted that R.S. Sharma, Pradeep Sawant, and Dattatray
Dal against whom similar allegations have been made, have already been
released on bail. It was also submitted that the maximum sentence for an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
offence under Section 24 of MCOC Act for rendering any help or support, in
the commission of an organised crime by a member of an organized crime
syndicate, or for abstaining from taking lawful measures under the Act, was
three years and that the appellant has already been in custody for three years
and four months.
8. Sri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the CBI, also
took us through the relevant material in support of his contention that the
appellant conspired, abetted and facilitated the commission of an organized
crime in the Telgi case, for which the punishment can extend upto life
imprisonment under Section 3(2) of MCOC Act and therefore, he should not
be enlarged on bail.
9. We find that R.S. Sharma, Commissioner of Police, Pradeep B.
Sawant, Dy. Commissioner of Police and Dattatray Dal, Police Inspector,
against whom somewhat similar allegations are made, have already been
released on bail. The High Court has found that the material disclosed an
intention on the part of the appellant to help or support the commission of
organized crime by Telgi and his associates by ensuring that the custody of
Telgi remained with Crime Branch Unit-V and Telgi got all comforts and
facilities while in custody; that the appellant permitted, and even directed
deficient investigation to sabotage the case against Telgi and his associates;
and that a sum of Rupees fifteen lakhs might have been received by the
appellant (and not Rs.72 lacs, as stated in the remand application) from the
agents of Telgi; and that the appellant might have played a role in preparing
of a panchnama dated 12.1.2003, to cover up Telgi, by showing Shabir
Ahmed Shaikh as an associate of Ram Ratan Soni. On the basis of the
above, the High Court has held that it cannot be said that the appellant is not
guilty of an offence punishable under the MCOC Act. But the High Court
has not held that the material prima facie disclose that the appellant
conspired or abetted or knowingly facilitated commission of an organized
crime, punishable under section 3(2) of the MCOC Act.
10. The appellant has already been in jail for more than three years which
is the maximum period of punishment that could be imposed under Section
24 of the MCOC Act. Whether the involvement of Appellant goes beyond
the scope of section 24 of the Act, to fall under section 3(2) of the Act, is an
issue yet to be decided. It is not in dispute that several hundred witnesses
have been cited and have to be examined and the trial is likely to take
several years. Having regard to the nature of involvement alleged and the
role attributed to the appellant, even with section 21(4) of MCOC Act in
view, this is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant. Though both counsel
have taken us through material to support of their respective stand, it is not
necessary to record any specific finding thereon.
11. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High
Court and direct the Special Court, Pune, to enlarge the appellant on bail on
his furnishing security to its satisfaction in a sum of Rupees Two Lakhs with
two solvent sureties for like sum. The appellant shall comply with the
conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and also surrender his
passport, before the Special Court.