MCOCA court finds ‘strong suspicion’, no discharge in 2023 Nagpada abduction case

Additional Sessions Judge Satyanarayan R. Navander earlier in the week rejected the pleas of Vicky Amarjitsingh Kagada and Arun Sayanna Gunti, observing that the prosecution material prima facie establishes their role in the alleged offence

MUMBAI: A special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court has held that even a “strong suspicion” is enough to put the accused on trial, refusing to discharge two men in a ₹25 lakh Nagpada abduction-cum-robbery case and ruling that the evidence against them cannot be brushed aside as groundless.

MCOCA court finds ‘strong suspicion’, no discharge in 2023 Nagpada abduction case

Additional Sessions Judge Satyanarayan R. Navander earlier in the week rejected the pleas of Vicky Amarjitsingh Kagada and Arun Sayanna Gunti, observing that the prosecution material prima facie establishes their role in the alleged offence.

As per the prosecution, a cash courier working for a Masjid Bunder-based dry fruit trader was abducted on April 7, 2023, near Potiya Compound after collecting ₹25 lakh. He was allegedly assaulted and robbed before being abandoned in Chunabhatti.

Kagada is alleged to have driven the vehicle used in the abduction, while Gunti is accused of being part of the conspiracy.

While rejecting Kagada’s plea, the court relied on the victim’s identification in a test identification parade (TIP), call detail records, and location data indicating coordination with co-accused. It also noted material suggesting links to an organised crime syndicate and “continuing unlawful activity”.

In Gunti’s case, the court observed that although he was not physically present at the scene, he was allegedly in continuous contact with co-accused. It also cited recovery of a portion of the stolen amount from him pursuant to his disclosure statement.

The court held that, taken cumulatively, the material prima facie establishes his link to the offence.

Explaining the legal position under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court said it is not required to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence at the discharge stage. It said that if the material raises a “strong suspicion”, charges must follow. The court added that discharge is warranted only when the case is “wholly insufficient” and “no reasonable person” could conclude that the accused has committed the offence.

The court added that objections to identification procedures and other evidentiary issues can be tested during trial, and the absence of a test identification parade for Gunti is not fatal at this stage.

With sufficient grounds found to proceed, the court has cleared the way for framing of charges against both accused.