Bombay High CourtABA/330/2017dismissed

Siddharth @ Bapu S/O. Bhaskar Rangari v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, P.S. Ballarpur Tah. Ballarpur Dist. Chandrapur

2017-07-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 aba330.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 330 OF 2017 (SIDDHARTH @ BAPU S/O BHASKAR RANGARI...VS...STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. PS BALLARPUR, TAH-BALLARPUR, DISTT.CHANDRAPUR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. Deepa Charlewar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri N. R. Patil, A.P.P. for Non-applicant.

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 18 th JULY , 2017.

Apprehending arrest in connection with crime registered for the offence punishable under Sections 65(e) and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant has sought pre-arrest bail.

According to the Investigating Agency, huge stock of liquor worth Rs.5,33,500/- is seized from the house of co-accused Shrawan Jaiswal and present applicant. The application is opposed on the ground that the applicant is a habitual offender and eleven cases for serious offences under the Indian Penal Code and for similar offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act are registered against him.

The learned A. P. P. has pointed out that while granting interim protection to the applicant by order passed on 19th May, 2017, this Court had directed the applicant to

2 aba330.17 attend the police station on alternate day, however, the applicant attended the police station only once and has not complied with the order passed by this Court and has not cooperated with the Investigating Agency. I find that the applicant had suppressed from this Court that other crimes are registered against him. In the facts of the case and accepting the submission made on behalf of the Investigating Agency that custody of the applicant is required for further investigation, the prayer made in the application is rejected. The application is dismissed.

As the applicant has enjoyed the protection granted by this Court by order passed on 19th May, 2017, the applicant is directed to surrender within one week failing which note of his conduct be taken at various stages of the proceedings.

JUDGE PBP