Shaikh Mustafa Shaikh Mohiuddin. v. The State Of Maharashtra.
1 Cr. Appln. 2650/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2650 OF 2016 Shaikh Mustafa Shaikh Mohiuddin .. Applicant Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ---- Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.Y. Mahajan, A.P.P. for the respondent/State ---- CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 07/06/2016 ORAL ORDER :
Heard.
2.
The applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in crime no. 3036 of 2015 registered at Palam Police Station, Dist. Parbhani for the offences punishable under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act for the alleged incidents dated 9/10/2015 to 29/11/2015 for which the FIR came to be lodged on 29th November, 2015. 3.
The case of the applicant is that the applicant is falsely implicated in the crime in question, as he is neither a ration shop owner nor named as an accused in the FIR. Shri Gangakhedkar, learned counsel for the
2 Cr. Appln. 2650/2016 applicant, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2005 SC 716, would submit that just because the applicant is named as an accused in the statement of other co-accused, the applicant cannot be held to be prima facie involved in the crime, as such statements are not required to be taken into account. He would then submit that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary having regard to the role attributed to him in the statement of the co-accused is that of a person authorized and engaged by the original fair price shop owner for the purpose of processing the necessary compliances with the State Government for releasing the quota of foodgrains.
4.
Learned A.P.P. while inviting my attention to the investigation carried out till date, would submit that the applicant is the main inkling in the crime in question. He would submit that the applicant used to act for and on behalf of the three fair price shop owners, who are named as accused. Three fair price shop owners have named the present applicant as accused, who
3 Cr. Appln. 2650/2016 has processed the lifting of scheduled commodity from the Government godown and illegal disposal of the same. He submits that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary as there is prima facie case against the applicant.
5.
With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the case papers.
6.
All the three accused persons, who are holders of the fair price shop licenses, have named the present applicant as an co-accused, who is responsible for the crime in question.
7.
Perhaps at that point of time, involvement of the applicant in crime in question came to be noticed by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, thereafter, investigated the crime by towing the line, as has been provided by the co-accused, noticing that there is prima facie involvement of the applicant in the crime in question. The fact remains that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary, so to as ascertain the exact mode and manner of commission of the crime in question and to ascertain the illegal
4 Cr. Appln. 2650/2016 disposal, custody of the scheduled commodities under the Essential Commodities Act.
8.
Having regard to the fact that there is sufficient material available on record against the applicant in the commission of crime in question, in my view, it will be appropriate to reject the present application. Hence, the following order :- 9.
The Application stands rejected.
10.
Prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant to continue the interim protection granted to the applicant, vide order dated 13th May, 2016 is rejected in view of the prima facie involvement of the applicant in the crime in question. Said interim protection stands vacated.
[N.W. SAMBRE] JUDGE arp/