MUMBAI: A special court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) on Wednesday granted bail to a 43-year-old man accused in the 2016 Santacruz double-murder case, noting that he had spent over nine years in custody with the trial has showing little progress. The court also cited parity with co-accused who had already been released on similar grounds.
Special judge N R Pradhan, who presides over cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, allowed the bail plea of Sachin Sitaram Pawar.
Pawar faces charges under sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and MCOCA.
Granting bail, the court directed Pawar to furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with a solvent surety, deposit an additional ₹1 lakh in cash, report to Dharavi police station twice a month, surrender his passport, and refrain from entering the Santacruz police station jurisdiction or contacting prosecution witnesses.
The case relates to a violent incident on July 27, 2016, when six armed men allegedly stormed the Santacruz office of Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd (HDIL) and launched a deadly assault using firearms and sharp weapons. Two men, Nadeem Patel and Babu Khan, were killed, and another person was injured. The attack was reportedly linked to an extortion dispute involving suspected gang members.
According to the prosecution, Pawar and others, acting on the instructions of alleged gang leader Zulfikar alias Zulfi Yasin Behlim, executed the murders “in broad daylight”. It alleged that in a confessional statement recorded under MCOCA, Pawar admitted to attacking the victims with a chopper and a pistol, later destroying both the weapons and his clothes.
The prosecution opposed bail, citing Pawar’s “criminal antecedents” and the risk of witness intimidation, claiming that eight other offences were previously registered against him.
Defence counsel Ravishankar Dwivedi, however, sought bail on the ground of parity, noting that the Bombay High Court had granted bail to Behlim and Sanjog Suresh Tingote, while the sessions court had released Mohsin Yasin Behlim and Kalim Rauf Sayyed. He also argued that only 15 of 129 witnesses had been examined so far, none of whom identified Pawar, and that his prolonged incarceration violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Judge Pradhan referred to the Bombay High Court’s December 2024 bail order for Behlim, which had highlighted the “remote possibility of the trial being completed within a reasonable period”. He observed that even after eight years, only 15 witnesses had testified, and that courts must exercise their discretion to grant bail in such cases of prolonged custody under special laws.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that even under special statutes like MCOCA, when there is long incarceration and little prospect of an early trial, the courts must consider releasing the accused on bail,” the order stated.