3 days ago
CBI court refuses bail to gangster Chhota Rajan in 2005 arms seizure case
MUMBAI: A special court designated under the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Wednesday rejected the bail plea of gangster Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje, alias Chhota Rajan, in connection with a 2005 case involving a major arms seizure at the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT).
The court, in its order dated May 28, noted that the trial was nearing completion and the case was of a serious nature. 'All important witnesses have been examined, and the trial is likely to conclude within a few months,' said special judge A M Patil while denying the bail plea.
The case dates back to May 21, 2005, when Mumbai police recovered a cache of firearms and ammunition concealed in drums filled with grease at a logistics facility near JNPT. The raid was triggered by the arrest of one Mukund Patel, who was found in possession of a loaded revolver at a bar near Kandivali West railway station.
During interrogation, Patel allegedly disclosed that Rajan's aide, Bharat Nepali, had facilitated the smuggling of weapons into the city. Acting on this information, the Mumbai Crime Branch conducted a search at Trans India Logistic Park, recovering nine packets containing 34 revolvers, three pistols, one silencer, and 1,283 live cartridges.
Following the seizure, police invoked the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), citing the involvement of an organised crime syndicate. The CBI took over the investigation in 2015, after Rajan was extradited to India.
In his bail application, Rajan contended that there was no direct evidence linking him to the arms haul and claimed he had been falsely implicated. His counsel argued that he has been in judicial custody since October 2015, and the delay in concluding the trial infringed on his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
The defence also questioned the admissibility of call records purportedly linking Rajan to the other accused, arguing that the sanction to invoke MCOCA was vague and procedurally flawed.
However, the prosecution strongly opposed the plea. The special public prosecutor maintained that the charge sheet contained sufficient evidence tying Rajan to the smuggling operation. It was also submitted that a police officer had identified Rajan's voice in an intercepted conversation and cautioned that given his history of absconding, he posed a flight risk if granted bail.
Upholding the prosecution's arguments, the court ruled that Rajan's continued detention was justified and that the cited legal precedents in the defence's argument were not applicable at the current stage of the trial.
