Vikrant Dipak Raut v. State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 318 OF 2023 Digitally signed by PRADNYA MAKARAND BHOGALE Date:

2023.02.03 10:22:04 +0530 Vikrant Dipak Raut ..Applicant VS The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent PRADNYA MAKARAND BHOGALE ------------ Adv. Ashish Satpute a/w Adv. Amit Icham for the Applicant. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State.

------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : FEBRUARY 1, 2023 P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

2.

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 307, 353 read with Section 34, 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in connection with C.R. No.367 of 2022 dated 18/11/2022 registered with Talasari Police Station, Palghar. 3.

The FIR was registered on 18/11/2022 for the incident which took place on 17/11/2022. The allegation of the 1/3

complainant Shri Mahesh Prakash Dhanshetty working as an Excise Inspector, Dahanu is that they received the information about two pickup vans which were transporting unauthorized liquor. The applicant was driving an empty pickup vehicle. The unauthorized liquor was in the other vehicle. When the officials of the Excise Department were chasing the said pickup vehicle which was carrying unauthorized liquor, the applicant who was driving the empty pickup vehicle obstructed them from discharging their duties and gave a dash to the complainant's vehicle. As a result of this, the vehicle belonging to the Excise Department suffered an accident and the occupants suffered injuries.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that false allegations are levelled against the applicant. He submits that the injuries suffered by the Excise Department officials are simple in nature. It is further contended that the applicant was not driving the vehicle which had the unauthorized liquor.

5.

I have gone through the FIR. The informant has 2/3

described the manner in which the vehicle which was driven by the applicant. The vehicle of the first informant turned turtle on the side of the road and landed in a ditch. The applicant was driving the pickup vehicle without the number plate. Both the vehicles have been seized. The co-accused has been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court. 6.

Considering the nature of the accusations, though the vehicles have been seized, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to grant the relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant.

7.

The anticipatory bail application is rejected. (M. S. KARNIK, J.) 3/3