JUDGMENT P. N. DESHMUKH, J. :- The original accused No.3 Pappu @ Atul Sonba Jogawade by invoking the provisions of Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999 read with Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code has approached this Court for bail against the order passed below Exhibit 25 in MCOCA Case No.1/12 by the learned Special Judge, Pune dated 28th September, 2012. Appellant along with 14 other accused are charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 141, 143, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, under section 4/25 of Arms Act and 37(1) / 135 of Bombay Police Act with Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act. Prior to this application, earlier application for bail being Bail Application 1613 of 2012 filed by the appellant before this Court was withdrawn on 25th February, 2013. 2. Learned advocate Mr. J. Shekar for the appellant in support of his case submitted that there is no any specific role attributed to the appellant by any of the eyewitnesses, including the injured witnesses and as such even prima facie it cannot be said that any case is made out against the appellant. He further pointed out that the injured witnesses namely Ram Kedari and Bapu Shirsat, according to the case of the prosecution itself are allegedly assaulted by a group of assailants armed with different weapons like sword, gupti, knife. The appellant is alleged to be armed with a bamboo stick and thus, injuries which are found on the person of the victim cannot be attributed to the appellant. Another point canvassed is that as per memorandum statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, said document is recorded from 5.50 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 8th September, 2011 while the seizure panchanama of bamboo stick is shown to be effected during the period from 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. on the same date and as such, the seizure panchanama is submitted to be a concocted document as according to the appellant, distance between the police station where the memorandum statement of the appellant is alleged to have been recorded and the place wherefrom the appellant is alleged to have recovered the bamboo stick is far away from each other. It is also submitted that even otherwise the alleged recovery of bamboo stick is from the open place accessible to all and as such, the above evidence cannot be acted against the appellant. It is thus prayed that the appeal be allowed. 3. Learned A.P.P. Mrs. S.D. Shinde on the other hand opposed the application and has pointed out that learned Special Judge has rightly considered all these aspects and was pleased to reject the bail application. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 4. Record reveals that the complainant, Avinash Khandare lodged his report in the midnight at 2.40 a.m. on 13th September, 2011 of an incident which had occurred at 10.30 p.m. on 12th September, 2011. On the basis of the report, offence came to be registered vide Crime No.367/11. According to the complainant, at the time of incident when he was in the company of injured witnesses near Khandoba Temple, Kothrud, he was asked by co-accused Niliesh Gawade on telephone to meet him at Datta Mandir otherwise his house will be demolished. Accordingly, complainant accompanied by Bapu Shirsat and Ram Kedari went to Datta Mandir and found appellant along with 14 to 15 other accused persons armed with weapons like sword, sickle and knife present and committed a preplanned assault on the complainant and his men. 5. On considering the documents, it is revealed that on the basis of the proposal submitted by the investigating agency, stringent provisions of MCOC Act are applied and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed in the Special Court at Pune. From the documents on record it further reveals that the incident is between two groups of criminals whose activities are mainly to threaten the residents and extort money illegally. Prima facie, it appears that the assault in question is to create terror in the society so as to extort money and as such, the provisions of MCOCA are applicable. The involvement of the appellant is also found as a member of crime syndicate of which the gang leader appears to be co-accused Nilesh Gawade. The statements of injured eye witnesses as well as other witnesses clearly establish the involvement of the appellant in the present assault which took place in the night intervening 12th September, 2013 and 13th September, 2011. The statements of injured eye witnesses as well as other witnesses clearly establish the involvement of the appellant in the present assault which took place in the night intervening 12th September, 2013 and 13th September, 2011. The statement also reveals that appellant at the relevant time was armed with bamboo stick and all the accused opened attack on the complainant and members of his gang which includes injured Avinash Khandare, the complainant as well as Babu Sutar, Ram Kedari. In the light of available material against the appellant on record establishing his presence armed with a bamboo stick to commit the assault along with other co-accused and all the accused since prima facie appears to have shared common object, we find no force in the submission that no overt act is attributed to the appellant, by any of the witnesses. Similarly, the case as put forth with reference to the time gap as mentioned in the memorandum statement of the appellant and the alleged recovery panchanama of bamboo stick are the aspects which needs to be considered at the time of the trial on scrutinizing evidence. Learned Advocate for the appellant with reference to the recovery of bamboo stick at the instance of appellant has cited a case of Salim Akhtar Alias Mota V/s. State of U.P. reported in (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 499 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1167 (S.C.)]. In this case recovery of a polythene bag containing pistol and other articles was made from open place which was accessible to all and everyone. PW1 Rai has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the recovery of polythene bag was made from an open "gher" in a lonely place where anyone could easily come. In the light of the above fact, thus it was held that such evidence raised considerable doubt regarding the fact of recovery at the instance of accused, however, from the record, it reveals that in the case in hand, the recovery of bamboo stick is effected at the instance of appellant which was concealed in a bush, as such it cannot be said that it was an open place. Bamboo stick appears to be discovered by the appellant which was concealed in the bushes and thus appellant alone can said to have knowledge of the said concealment. Bamboo stick appears to be discovered by the appellant which was concealed in the bushes and thus appellant alone can said to have knowledge of the said concealment. In the light of above facts, prima facie, we are of the considered view that there, exists substantial and probable cause for believing that there is sufficient material which establishes involvement of the appellant and that there is no material to arrive or to even believe that the appellant is not guilty of the alleged offence. In view of the above and the limitation imposed by Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code and restrictions placed by Section 21(4) (a) & (b) of the MCOC Act, appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the circumstances, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.