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.