JUDGMENT - MOHITE R.S., J.:---Heard Shri Tiwari, learned Advocate for the applicants and Shri Sathianathan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application for grant of bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal. 3. The application has already been withdrawn insofar as application No. 2 Mahesh is concerned. Insofar applicant No. 3 Ashok is concerned, an earlier bail application bearing Criminal Application No. 1912 of 2002 was filed in this Court on behalf of this accused. However, the said bail application came to be unconditionally withdrawn on 25-9-2002. I am informed that this accused is a driver of one Santosh Ambekar, who is the main accused in this case and was caught during an attempt to commit dacoity. Since, the application on behalf of applicant No. 3 was withdrawn unconditionally, I am not inclined to entertain the present application on his behalf. 4. As far as applicant No. 1 is concerned, she is a lady and the sister of the main accused Santosh Ambekar. She was also an applicant in Criminal Application No. 1912 of 2002. Her application for bail was rejected by this Court vide an order dated 3-10-2002. A perusal of the said order indicates that her bail was rejected on the ground that she was not on bail during the trial and that she had been under custody since her arrest from 4-8-2000. The order passed by this Court did not take into account the merits of the case, to which I will presently advert to. 5. The prosecution case was that on 9-4-1999, one Anil Ninawe was murdered by a gang of the main accused Santosh Ambekar in respect of which Crime No. 116 of 1999 was registered at Lakadganj Police Station against the said accused Santosh Ambekar and six other members of his gang for the offences punishable under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The police found that several crimes had been registered against Santosh Ambekar and accused Nos. 2 to 7. These seven persons were prominently found having links with each other in commission of organised crime. In the circumstances, sanction was sought by the police machinery to register a crime against them under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as the 'M.C.O.C. Act"). 2 to 7. These seven persons were prominently found having links with each other in commission of organised crime. In the circumstances, sanction was sought by the police machinery to register a crime against them under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as the 'M.C.O.C. Act"). The said sanction was accorded against the seven persons by the Additional Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, vide his order dated 26-9-1999. 6. It is not the prosecution case that the present, applicant No. 1 Vandana was involved in any of the crimes or in any of the cases said to have been committed by Santosh Ambekar or his gang members. Vandana is the married sister of Santosh Ambekar. She had separated from her husband and was living in the same house with Santosh Ambekar. Santosh Ambekar was absconding and the police was in search of him. Since the search has proved to be futile, the Court had, on the request of the Investigating Officer, issued a proclamation in respect of Santosh Ambekar. The police had also kept a tab on the house of Santosh Ambekar where Vandana was residing and had tapped the telephone in the house, after following the due procedure of law. The material against the present applicant No. 1 Vandana is that on 28-6-2000, Vandana received a telephone telling her that he was going to contact his associates at Nagpur on telephone No. 772858 situated near Aychit Mandir and that he had proceeded from Mumbai to Nasik in connection with some work. Another telephone call is said to have been received by Vandana from Santosh Ambekar on 23-7-2000 in which Santosh has said to have informed Vandana that Crime persons from Nagpur have come and he will be leaving for Delhi and to inform the sister at Delhi. It is alleged that thereafter Vandana rang up to her sister at Delhi on telephone No. 5571097 and informed the aforesaid to her sister and mother. 7. The sister in Delhi is supposed to have been a woman by name Archana. It is not in dispute that Archana to whose house in Delhi, Santosh was said to be travelling, was not made an accused in this case. 7. The sister in Delhi is supposed to have been a woman by name Archana. It is not in dispute that Archana to whose house in Delhi, Santosh was said to be travelling, was not made an accused in this case. On the basis of such acts, Vandana was roped in under provisions of M.C.O.C. Act, 1999 for committing offences under section 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the M.C.O.C Act, and after evidence has been led, she has been convicted under the said provisions of the Act and sentenced to undergo the total R.I. for seven years. 8. After going through the conversation, it is clear that Vandana has not taken part in any of the crimes committed by Santosh Ambekar or any of his gang members. Her overt act is restricted to receiving two calls from her brother and making one call to her sister and mother at Delhi, informing them that Santosh would be coming to Delhi. 9. In my view, prima facie, it would be difficult to say that by merely informing her sister and mother that her brother was coming to Delhi, she could be said to have conspired or attempted to commit or Advocated, abetted or knowingly facilitated the commission of any organised crime or any act preparatory to organised crime within the meaning of section 3(2) of the M.C.O.C. Act, 1999. It appears that section 3(2) of the M.C.O.C. Act, relates to a point of time at or prior to the commission of the main crime. Insofar as section 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act, is concerned, there is no criminal case pending against Vandana. It is admitted that she did not take any part in the crime committed by Santosh Ambekar and his gang members. Prima facie, in my view, the offence under section 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act, cannot be said to be made out and it will be difficult to hold that Vandana was a member of organised crime. The question, however, remains to be decided is whether Vandana harboured, concealed or attempted to harbour or conceal Santosh Ambekar, within the meaning of section 3(3) of the Act. The word "harbour" is defined under section 52-A of Indian Penal Code, as follows : 10. The question, however, remains to be decided is whether Vandana harboured, concealed or attempted to harbour or conceal Santosh Ambekar, within the meaning of section 3(3) of the Act. The word "harbour" is defined under section 52-A of Indian Penal Code, as follows : 10. "Harbour" Except in section 157, and in section 130 in the case in which the harbour is given by the wife of husband or the person harboured, the word "harbour" includes the supplying a person with shelter, food, drink, money, clothes, arms, ammunition or means of conveyance, or the assisting a person by any means, whether of the same kind as those enumerated in this section or not, to evade apprehension. 11. It is significant that under section 2(2) of M.C.O.C. Act, 1999, it is provided that words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Code shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Code. Vandana had not given shelter, food, drink, money, clothes, arms, ammunition or means of conveyance. In my view, merely by informing her sister that Santosh Ambekar was coming, it would be difficult to hold that she had assisted Santosh Ambekar to evade apprehension. 12. The word "conceal" is not defined either in the M.C.O.C. Act or in the Indian Penal Code. The meaning given to the word in the New Oxford American Dictionary is to keep from site, hide, keep secret. In my view, it would be stretching the meaning of "conceal" to unreasonable length by holding that informing by a sister about the impending arrival of Santosh can amount to concealing. It is pertinent to note that Vandana had not called upon the sister at Delhi where Santosh was to arrive, to commit any act of concealing. The prosecution did not think it necessary even to make Archana, who is the sister in Delhi and who had actually allowed the accused to stay, as an accused in this case. 13. In this view of the matter, on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to applicant No. 1 Vandana. 14. It is directed that the present applicant No. 1-Vandana Rajkumar Verma is directed to be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 13. In this view of the matter, on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to applicant No. 1 Vandana. 14. It is directed that the present applicant No. 1-Vandana Rajkumar Verma is directed to be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount, subject to the condition that she will report to Lakadganj Police Station once in a fortnight i.e. on every second and fourth Sunday of the month, till this appeal is finally disposed of. Application allowed. -----