Pune Builder Murder Case: Was It Really a Criminal Conspiracy? Supreme Court Examines 5 Cr Land Deal

Case- SLP (Crl) No. 5546/2025 Atit Deven Shah vs. State of Maharashtra This case before the Supreme Court of India is regarding the invocation of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in the fatal shooting of Pune-based builder Deven Shah. The primary legal battle centers on whether the criminal conspiracy charges can be maintained against Accused No. 7 (Sameer Sadavarte) or if his case can be completely bifurcated from Accused No. 6 (Nitin Dangat). Counsel for the prosecution strongly argued against the discharge of Accused no.7, contending that the underlying land disputes and subsequent financial settlements with the deceased were entirely composite, totaling ₹5 crores across two consecutive meetings where both A6 and A7 were present. The prosecution emphasized that a trial court cannot selectively evaluate evidence at the stage of framing charges, pointing out that A7 made seven consecutive phone calls to the deceased on the day of the incident, which warrants full forensic determination through a proper trial rather than summary discharge. Conversely, the Bench raised critical questions regarding the direct link connecting A7 to the actual execution of the crime. The Court highlighted the trial court's finding that the deceased had explicitly stated he would handle his transactions with Sadavarte separately, and that the immediate illegal consequences ensued only after Nitin Dangat (A6) failed to honor his specific ₹3.5 crore settlement. Furthermore, the Bench pointed out a significant fault line in the conspiracy theory: while a clear financial trail of ₹2 lakhs exists from A6 to the weapon provider, call data records show zero communication between A7 and the hitmen or co-conspirators immediately before or after the shooting. The defense's own documentation and confessions suggested an alternative probability—that the hired strongmen executed the contract independently after being shortchanged on their promised commissions by the deceased. Ultimately, the arguments underscore the high threshold required to establish a continuous criminal syndicate connection under MCOCA when an individual's involvement appears limited to parallel commercial land disputes.