Reena Rajendra Padvi v. The State Of Maharashtra
2025:BHC-AUG:33151 {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1991 OF 2025 Reena Rajendra Padvi ....Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra .....Respondent .....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Raghuwanshi Rahul R APP for Respondents: Mr. K. N. Lokhande.
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER, 2025.
P.C. :- 1.
The applicant has approached this court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 349 of 2025 registered with Akkalkuwa Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 274, 275 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 65-B, 65-C, 65-D, 65-E, 65-F of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
2.
It is the contention of the applicant that the applicant is not resident of the area where the raid was conducted and she is a resident of Nandurbar and has nothing to do with the manufacturing of illicit liquor and its transportation. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said land on which the illegal activity of manufacturing of illicit liquor was found, is leased out in the name of the accused Vikas Singh Harihar Singh Amethi by executing a leave and licence agreement on 3.9.2025. She, therefore, submits that as the applicant does not
{2} reside in the said plot which is already leased out on leave and licence, the applicant was not aware about any such illegal activities being carried out in the said land. It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents. The applicant is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. She may, therefore, be released on anticipatory bail.
3.
As against this, the learned APP submits that the nature of offence is serious as illegal activity of manufacturing illicit liquor was carried and such illicit liquor has been seized from the godown at the place which belongs to the present applicant. The FIR itself states the name of the applicant to be the owner of said land and accused found on the spot have informed that the applicant is the mastermind of the said illegal activity of manufacturing and transportation of illicit liquor. He, therefore, submits that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to unearth the entire conspiracy and also to find out if there are any other persons involved in the crime. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the application.
4.
I have gone through the allegations in the FIR. The FIR directly implicates the role of the present applicant to the main accused - brain behind committing such activity of manufacturing illicit liquor. There is a huge cache of material used for manufacturing spurious liquor found on the spot and godown allegedly belonging to the present applicant. There are continuous phone calls between the applicant and other accused and the money trail also shows that there are several transaction which are exchanged between the applicant and other arrested accused persons. The petitioner himself has brought on record the agreement of leave and licence to show that the said land was licenced by the applicant to one Vikas Singh Harihar Singh. The form no.8 extract is also there to show that the shops in which the godown
{3} was used for manufacturing liquor belongs to the present applicant. In my opinion, therefore, there is sufficient material for investigating the role of the present application in the said crime. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is, therefore, necessary for investigating the crime in all aspects. Hence, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. The application, therefore, stands rejected. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN] JUDGE.
grt/-