Babulal Maraji Bharsakale v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. Ramnagar, Chandrapur

1 aba50.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 50 OF 2016 (BABULAL MARAJI BHARSAKALE...VS..STATE OF MAH., THR. PSO, PS RAMNAGAR, CHANDRAPUR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : MARCH 07, 2016.

Heard Shri Ajnan De, advocate for the applicant, and Shri R.S. Nayak, A.P.P. for the non-applicant. The applicant has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apprehending arrest in the crime registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 65-B and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.

The accusations against the applicant are that inspite of ban on sale of liquor in Chandrapur district, a huge stock of foreign and country liquor is found in the house of the applicant. The non-applicant has opposed the application and has pointed out that earlier five crimes had been registered against the applicant.

The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that this Court has granted an interim protection on 2nd February, 2016 and the applicant has co-operated with the investigation and there is no adverse complaint against the applicant. It is submitted that co-accused Akshay Rajeshsingh Bais who is occupying the premises where the stock of liquor is found as tenant is granted regular bail by the

2 aba50.16 Sessions Court. It is submitted that in these facts, it cannot be said that the custody of the applicant is required by the Investigation Officer for further investigation. It is submitted that the applicant has been acquitted in four cases. Relying on the judgment given in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011(1) SCC 694, it is submitted that the present one is not an exceptional case where the arrest of applicant is imperative. It is prayed that the interim order passed by this Court on 2nd February, 2016 be confirmed.

Considering the fact that huge stock of liquor has been seized from the premises owned by the applicant, in spite of ban on sale of liquor in Chandrapur district and the registration of crimes earlier against the applicant, in my view, this is not a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

The application is dismissed.

CRI.APPLN.(APPP) NO.106/2016.

In view of dismissal of the main application, the application for grant of time to file copies of the FIR and Say does not survive, hence, it is disposed of.

JUDGE RRaut..