Thane, April 1: A special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court, Thane, has rejected the bail application of a 36-year-old alleged serial offender, Vickysingh Jalindarsingh Kalyani, arrested in a robbery case, noting his extensive criminal record and the likelihood of reoffending.
Court cites criminal antecedents
The court, presided over by Special Judge V.G. Mohite, refused to grant relief after the prosecution informed that the accused has as many as 83 cases registered against him across multiple cities in Maharashtra, including Thane, Navi Mumbai, Pune, and Ahilyanagar.
In its order, the court observed that the accused has significant criminal antecedents and held that the possibility of him committing similar offences if released on bail cannot be ruled out. Relying on the stringent provisions of the MCOCA, the court emphasised that there exists a statutory bar on granting bail unless specific conditions are satisfied.
“Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act provides a bar to grant bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit a similar offence while on bail. In this matter, the investigating officer has collected direct as well as circumstantial incriminating evidence showing his involvement. The material indicates prima facie guilt. Considering his past conduct and criminal antecedents, the possibility of repetition of similar offences cannot be ruled out,” the court noted.
Details of the case
According to the prosecution, the case stems from an FIR lodged by complainant Siddhesh Vijay Manjrekar, who alleged that between the evening of March 20, 2025, and the morning of March 22, 2025, unidentified persons broke open the safety door of his residence in Dombivli (East), and allegedly committed a robbery, thereby stealing gold ornaments worth Rs 8.96 lakh from a cupboard.
Following the registration of the offence, the police arrested the accused and his associates. Subsequently, approval was obtained to invoke provisions of the MCOCA against them, and after securing prosecution sanction, a chargesheet was filed.
Defence arguments
The defence in the bail application had argued that Kalyani had been falsely implicated and that his name did not appear in the FIR. It was contended that no direct role or overt act had been attributed to him, and no recovery had been made from his possession. The defence also pointed out that a co-accused from whom the stolen ornaments were allegedly recovered had already been granted bail.
It was further submitted that the accused had retracted his statement recorded under Section 18 of the MCOCA and that there was no call detail record (CDR) placing him at the scene of the crime. The defence maintained that mere criminal antecedents cannot be a ground to deny bail and that the accused was willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the court.
Also Watch:
Prosecution stance
The prosecution had opposed his bail plea. In its reply, the prosecution stated, “Kalyani is the leader of an organised crime syndicate, and there are as many as 83 serious cases registered against him over the past 10 years. During the investigation, it transpired that the accused and co-accused committed dacoity by looting gold ornaments worth Rs 8,96,000 from the informant’s house. The statement of the accused under Section 18 of the MCOC Act has been recorded, wherein he has disclosed the commission of the crime. Further, the possibility of him fleeing cannot be ruled out; hence, bail should be rejected.”
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
