Sanjay Kishinchand Haryani v. The State Of Maharashtra
Dusane 1/2 aba2119.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2119 OF 2016 Mr. Sanjay Kishinchand Haryani ....
Applicant/ Accused Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ....
Respondent (Thru' MRA Marg Police Station) Mr. Sonal Parab i/by Rajeev Sawant & Associates for the applicant.
Smt. J.S. Lohokare, APP for the State.
Mr. Hanumant Patil, PSI, MRA Marg Police Station present. Coram : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
Date : 16th December, 2016 P.C.
In Crime No.273 of 2016 registered on 22nd October, 2016 with MRA Marg Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant is claimed to have sold a stamp paper being a registered Stamp Vendor of a denomination of Rs.100/- on 29th September, 2009 though the said stamp paper was issued by India Security Press, Nashik and thereafter distributed by Treasury on 28th January, 2010.
The learned counsel for the applicant while relying upon the findings recorded in the order dtd. 5th May, 2010
Dusane 2/2 aba2119.2016 passed by the District Judge -3 & Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, while ordering the release of the present applicant on regular bail in Criminal Bail Application Nos. 736, 743 and 748 of 2010 submits that once the applicant has closed down the said business of stamp papers, he has sold the stamp papers in bulk. According to him, once stamp paper was sold, his responsibility came to an end.
The learned APP submits that the offence pertains to Government Securities and as such the custodial interrogation is necessary.
What could be gathered from the documents on record is that the stamp paper was shown to have been sold by the applicant on 29th September, 2009, which was issued by Government Treasury on 28th January, 2010. The said act of the applicant speaks of tampering with the date of sale of the stamp paper for the reasons known to him.
There appears prima facie case against the applicant. No case is made out for grant of bail. The application is therefore dismissed.
(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)