Anil S/O. Yadavrao Jidgilwar v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Sindewahi Dist. Chandarpur
aba47.18 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.47/2018 Anil s/o Yadavrao Jidgilwar ..vs..
The State of Mah., thr. PSO PS Sindewahi, District Chandrapur ....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ....................................................................................................................................................... Shri A.D. Hazare, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.D. Sonak, Addl.P.P. for the State.
CORAM
: V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 5, 2018.
1.
This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.2/2018 registered with Police Station Sindewahi, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Section 65(E) read with Section 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and read with Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
Heard learned counsel Shri A.D. Hazare for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.D. Sonak for the State. Also, perused the reply filed on behalf of the State. 4.
As per the prosecution case, the applicant is the main person who has brought 14500 bottles of country liquor in 3 cars. Though the applicant was not present at the time when the liquor was seized, according to the reply, the applicant is the person at whose .....2/-
aba47.18 1 behalf and for whom the liquor is brought in the prohibited area. 5.
Further, charge shows that 2 offences with similar nature of the year 2015 are pending, as per the reply. However, learned counsel Shri A.D. Hazare for the applicant submits that those offences are not of year 2015 but those are of the year 2016. That shows that the applicant is continuously involved in similar type of offences. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for any discretionary relief from this Court. 6.
Hence, the criminal application is rejected.
7.
Needless to state that interim orders granted by this Court on 24.1.2018 stands vacated.
JUDGE !! BRW !!
...../-