Chhota Rajan discharged in MCOCA case by Mumbai Court

Chhota Rajan was an accused in the 1999 case when six were shot at in Mumbai out of whom five died later

Underworld Don Chhota Rajan was discharged by a Special Mumbai court in connection with an MCOCA case lodged against him and others.

Chhota Rajan was an accused in the 1999 case when six persons, including a girl, were shot at in Mumbai's Bandra out of whom five died later.

Initially, the FIR was against unknown persons. It was lodged by one Ganga Ram Babulal Gupta. Later police identified the accused on the basis of their investigation.

Tushar Sail, the counsel of Chhota Rajan told IANS that he moved a discharge application before the Special Court. Tushar argued that there was no direct evidence against his client, Chhota Rajan and he was being framed.

"In the charge sheet filed by the prosecution, there was no specific role assigned to the accused. The investigation is full of doubts and there is no cogent evidence collected against the applicant," Tushar argued.

The discharge plea moved by Tushar read that "the Prosecution is taking advantage of some cases wherein the name of Chhota Rajan is shown along with other accused persons. It is very easy for the investigating officer to show association with other co-accused showing them as absconding. However, there is no evidence to show that the present applicant was the person mentioned in the charge sheet as Chhota Rajan. The entire charge sheet is silence about the identity of the accused."

The court after hearing the contention of both sides, the prosecution and the defence discharged Chhota Rajan.

Those who were made accused in the case were Ajay Suresh Mohite alias Ajay Surajbhan Shreshtha alias Ajay Nepali, Rajan Sadashiv Nikalje alias Chhota Rajan, Hemant Ramanna Pujari, Kundansingh Narsingh Rawat, Sammer Ashok Manik and Vikrant alias Vicky Malhotra.

Suresh Mohite was acquitted by the Special Court in 2004. Case against Chhota Rajan was showing as pending. The trial began against him after his deportation.

The defence counsel argued that the investigating officer had not added any material to show the involvement of the present applicant.

Check out DH's latest videos