ARSHAD JAINUDDIN KAZI AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                     934.APL-1781.26.DOC




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1781 OF 2026

Arshad Jainuddin Kazi & Anr.                         … Applicants
           V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                             …. Respondent
                             ______________________

Mr. Ranjeet M. Pawar, for the Applicants.
Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Pankaj Hole, PSI attached to Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune
present.
                        ______________________

                             CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                             DATED : 7 OCTOBER 2026
P. C. :-
1.         Heard Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicants and Mr. Ghag, learned APP, for the Respondent-State.

2.         By this Criminal Application filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the challenge is to the

legality and validity of the Order dated 30th January 2026 passed

by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge,

District and Sessions Court, Shivajinagar, Pune (“impugned

Order”). The impugned Order reads as under:

      “Perused.
      Heard.




                                  Page 1
PPN
                                                   934.APL-1781.26.DOC




      As such the provisions of MCOCA came to be invoked
      after release of the accused on bail, to facilitate the
      investigation, the re-arrest of the accused is very much
      essential. Hence, allowed to re-arrest the accused in
      this crime.”
                                             (Emphasis added)


3.     Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel for the Applicants, submits that

the re-arrest Order was passed by the learned Special Court

without issuing notice to the Applicants or hearing the Applicants.

He submits that the subject FIR has been lodged for the offences

punishable under Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 (“BNS”), Sections 5C, 9A and 9B of the Maharashtra Animal

Preservation Act, 1976 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty

to Animals Act, 1960. He further submits that the Applicants were

arrested on 1st September 2025 and, thereafter, Section 111 of

BNS was applied with previous sanction and that the Charge-sheet

was filed on 30th October 2025 and, thereafter, the Applicants

were released on bail on 1st December 2025. He submits that

thereafter, the provisions of Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act”)

have been applied on 26th December 2025 and the Application to

re-arrest was filed on 29th January 2026 and the Order to re-arrest

the Applicants have been passed on 30th January 2026. He further




                                Page 2
PPN
                                                 934.APL-1781.26.DOC




submits that Section 111 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of

MCOC Act are identical in punishment and fine amount and re-

arrest for the said offence is double jeopardy. He submits that the

reasons mentioned in re-arrest Application are already investigated

and the Charge-sheet has been filed.

4.    On the other hand, Mr. Ghag, learned APP, submits that the

Order passed is in accordance with law. On instructions, he

submits that now even the Charge-sheet has also been filed under

the provisions of MCOC Act.

5.    Perusal of the record shows that, on 1st September 2025,

FIR No.636 of 2025 has been filed with Hinjewadi Police Station,

for the offences punishable under Section 325 of BNS, Sections 5C,

9A and 9B of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and

Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 . The

Applicants were arrested on 1st September 2025. When the

Applicants were in custody, Section 111 of BNS was applied with

the previous sanction on 11th September 2025 and the Charge-

sheet was filed on 30th October 2025. Thereafter, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by Order dated 1st December

2025 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.6821 of 2025 has

granted regular bail. Thereafter, the provisions of the MCOC Act



                               Page 3
PPN
                                                  934.APL-1781.26.DOC




have been applied on 26th December 2025 and the Application to

re-arrest the Applicants was filed by the prosecution on 29th

January 2026 and the same has been immediately allowed on 30th

January 2026.

6.    Section 111 of BNS is regarding organised crime. The said

Section has already been applied on 11th September 2025 with

previous sanction and the Charge-sheet has been filed and

thereafter, only the Applicants have been released on bail.

7.    There is substance in the contention raised by Mr. Pawar,

learned Counsel for the Applicants, that Section 111 of BNS and

Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of MCOC Act, are identical in

punishment and fine amount.

8.    In any case, it is an admitted position that even under the

provisions of MCOC Act also the Charge-sheet has been filed.

Accordingly, it is not necessary to re-arrest the Accused for the

investigation, as observed by the learned Special Judge under

MCOC Court.

9.    Accordingly, the Order dated 30th January 2026 passed by

the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, District

and Sessions Court, Shivajinagar, Pune, is quashed and set aside.




                               Page 4
PPN
                                                934.APL-1781.26.DOC




10.   The Criminal Application is allowed in above terms


                                        [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                              Page 5
PPN