Vikas Raghunath Nalawade v. The State Maharashtra Thr. Pso. Ner Parsopant, Dist. Yavatmal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.96 OF 2025 (Vikas Raghunath Nalawade Vs. The State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.K. Jaiswal, Advocate for the applicant. Ms R.V. Sharma, APP for the State.

CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

DATED :- MARCH 24, 2025.

Apprehending the arrest at the hands of Police in connection with Crime No.447/2024, registered with Police Station Ner Parsopant, District Yavatmal, for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 7, 3(2)(a), 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 13(i)(2), 35(1)(b), 35(4), 19(a)(c)(II),(IV),(V),(VI), 2(b)(KK) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order 1985 and Section 3(a), 4, 22(c) of the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973, the applicant approached to this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail.

2.

The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged by Sanjay Shamrao Patil, Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Darwha lodged the report against the present applicant and the other co-accused alleging that present applicant, who is the Manager in the M/s. Rama Fertichem Limited, Pune. The complainant is the authorized to inspect the manufacturing, stock and sell

and draw samples for analysis and prohibit the manufacturing and supply of sub-standard fertilizers. On committing the raid M/s. Ramnath Agro Centre at Chikhali it reveals that the stock of sub-standard quality was found during the raid which was obtained from the same Rama Fertichem, and therefore, the applicant was arraigned as an accused. On receipt of the C.A. report it revealed that it is of sub-standard and not according to the norms. On the basis of said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant.

3.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the other co-accused who is the Proprietor of the said firm is already released on bail by this Court in the event of his arrest. He invited my attention towards the observations of this Court while releasing the other co-accused on bail wherein it is observed that if any order is passed by the authority the company has further right to prefer an appeal under Section 32(a) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order 1985. Thus, the applicant is deprived from the said right also and released the then applicant. He submitted that on the ground of parity, present applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that even accepting that applicant was working as a Manager there and in view of provisions of the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973 and against the said order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the appeal is provided under Section 32(a), but the informant, without following this process, lodged an F.I.R. against the present

applicant. As far as the custodial interrogation is concerned, which is not required as nothing is to be recovered. In view of that, he be protected by granting anticipatory bail.

4.

Learned APP strongly opposed the said application on the ground that during the raid conducted the sub-standard fertilizers are found in the Ramnath Agro Centre at Chikhali which is obtained from the Rama Fertichem wherein the present applicant was serving as a Manager and is looking after the day to day affairs of the said fertilizer company, and therefore, he is responsible officer of the said company. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

5.

After hearing both sides and on perusal of the F.I.R. and the documents filed along with application from which it reveals that initially samples were obtained from the company and the reports of the said samples show that it is as per the specification. As far the C.A. report of the Amravati Division is concerned, which is not before the Court but considering the fact that the reassessment letter was given by the company, instead of reassessing which is the right of the applicant and his company before taking any legal action, the said right was denied to him. If any order is passed by the authority, the company has further right to prefer an appeal under Section 32(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985. Thus, the applicant is deprived from the said right also. So far as the custodial

interrogation is concerned, which is not required as entire stock is already recovered. Considering the same, the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. In view of that, I proceed to pass following order : (i) The application is allowed.

(ii) In the event of arrest, the applicant - Vikas Raghunath Nalawade in connection with Crime No.447/2024, registered with Police Station Ner Parsopant, District Yavatmal, for the offence punishable under Sections 9, 7, 3(2)(a), 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 13(i)(2), 35(1)(b), 35(4), 19(a)(c) (II),(IV),(V),(VI), 2(b)(KK) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order 1985 and Section 3(a), 4, 22(c) of the Fertilizer (Movement Control) Order, 1973, be released on anticipatory bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.

(iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a week i.e.

on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency.

(iv) The applicant shall furnish his cell-phone number alongwith detail address and address proof and names of his two relatives and their address proof, before the investigating agency.

(v) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station, as directed. On failure to do so, the bail granted to the applicant deserves to be cancelled.

(vi) The applicant shall not induce, threat or promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case either personally or by way of electronic media.

6.

The application is disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) *Divya