MCOCA court refuses discharge to accused in 2020 Juhu builder murder case

The court held that the material collected by investigators, including witness statements linking him to the alleged conspiracy, was sufficient to proceed with the trial

MUMBAI: A special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) refused to discharge one of the accused in the 2020 murder of Juhu-based builder Munaf Shaikh.

Gavel and law books (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The court held that the material collected by investigators, including witness statements linking him to the alleged conspiracy, was sufficient to proceed with the trial. The court added that the law did not permit it to conduct a “mini trial” at the stage of deciding discharge pleas.

The accused, Khan, is facing trial along with others for offences including murder, criminal conspiracy and common intention under the Indian Penal Code, as well as provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act and the MCOCA.

According to the prosecution, Shaikh was stabbed to death in August 2020 allegedly due to a rivalry linked to a slum redevelopment project in the Juhu–Andheri area. Investigators said differences had emerged among partners of a development firm, Emel Ashok Enterprises, after Shaikh was inducted as a partner.

The police alleged that developer Ashok Chhajed, described as the main conspirator, along with other accused including Khan and members of an alleged organised crime syndicate, conspired to eliminate Shaikh and hired two people to carry out the attack.

Opposing Khan’s discharge plea, the prosecution argued that he was a member of the alleged organised crime syndicate headed by another accused, who is also his brother, and that evidence collected during the investigation pointed to his role in the conspiracy.

In his plea, Khan argued that there was no prima facie case against him. His lawyer said his name was not mentioned in the FIR, that he was not a member of the alleged gang, and that he had been implicated only because he was related to some of the co-accused. The defence also noted that the Bombay High Court had earlier granted him and another accused bail.

However, special judge NR Pradhan rejected the arguments, noting that witness statements cited in the chargesheet linked Khan to the alleged conspiracy and to events immediately after the murder. According to one witness cited in the chargesheet, the court recorded, the assailant came to an office where the witness was sleeping after the killing and “fled away on the motorcycle provided by the accused No.3 (Khan)”.

The court also rejected the argument that the grant of bail by the High Court warranted discharge. “The bail application is decided on different criteria than discharge application, therefore, mere granting of bail by the Hon’ble High Court is not sufficient to allow the discharge application of applicant,” the judge observed.

Concluding that the prosecution material disclosed grounds to proceed, the court rejected the discharge plea and said, “After going through the charge-sheet, I find that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant.”