Bombay High CourtABA/416/2017dismissed

Vishnu Ghanshyam Kanjar And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Ram Nagar Chandrapur

2017-06-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 aba416.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 416 OF 2017 (VISHNU GHANSHYAM KANJAR @ BHAT & ANR...VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. RAM NAGAR, DIST.CHANDRAPUR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S.Manohar, Advocate for Applicants.

Shri S.P.Deshpande, A.P.P. for Non-applicant. CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JUNE 20, 2017.

Heard.

The applicants, son and mother, apprehending arrest in crime registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 65(e) and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, have sought pre-arrest bail. The accusations against the applicants are that stock of liquor worth Rs.1,56,000/- is seized from the room which is owned by co-accused Namdeo, however, given on lease to the applicant No.2-Sau. Geeta, the rent being Rs.1,500/- per month.

The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that co-accused Namdeo who is undisputedly the owner of the house including the room from where the liquor is seized is granted pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court by order passed on 19th May, 2017. It is further submitted that though the Investigating Agency has pointed out that seven other crimes are registered against the applicant No.1, and 7 other crimes are registered against applicant No.2, after trial

2 aba416.17 applicant No.1 is acquitted in five cases and the applicant No.2 is acquitted in three cases.

The application is opposed on the ground that the applicants are habitual offenders and further that the investigation is in progress.

Considering the facts of the case and the antecedents of the applicants I am not inclined to grant the prayer made in the application. The application is dismissed. JUDGE RRaut..