← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/612/2017allowed

Naushadkhan Yusufkhan Pathan v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Ramnagar Dist. Chandrapur

2017-09-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

aba612.17 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.612/2017 Naushadkhan Yusufkhan Pathan ..vs..

State of Mah. thr. PSO PS Ramnagar, District Chandrapur ....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ....................................................................................................................................................... \ Shri M.N. Ali, Counsel for the applicant.

Shri V.P. Gangane, Addl.P.P. for the State.

CORAM

: V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 18, 2017.

1.

This is an application for pre-arrest bail.

2.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.981 of 2017 registered with Police Station Ramnagar, District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Section 65(a) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 read with Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

According to the first information report, first informant, who is the police officer, got information that Bolero vehicle is carrying liquor in the Chandrapur District. Therefore, arrangement was made for Naka-Bandi. The vehicle bearing registration No. MH-34-AA-9372 was proceeding from Chandrapur which was intercepted. The driver ran away from the spot. The vehicle was also seized.

4.

The allegation against the present applicant is that .....2/-

aba612.17 5 he is owner of the said vehicle.

5.

This Court has granted ad interim bail on 23.8.2017 with a direction that the applicant shall attend the police station on 26.8.2017, 29.8.2017, 31.8.2017, and 1.9.2017 and shall be with the investigating officer in between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m..

6.

According to learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant has attended the police station officer on those dates and was with the investigating officer. This particular statement is not disputed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

7.

In view of the aforesaid, custodial presence of the applicant is not necessary. Hence, order dated 23.8.2017 stands confirmed.

8.

The criminal application is allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE !! BRW !!

...../-