Sheikh Shahrukh S/O Sheikh Baba v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Aheri, Gadchiroli

2025:BHC-NAG:10168 1 14.aba.641.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 641/2025 Sheikh Shahrukh s/o. Sheikh Baba Vs. State of Maharashtra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. B. H. Tekam, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr. A. Ghogare, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,J.

DATED : 03/10/2025.

.

Heard.

2.

The applicant has apprehension of arrest in Crime No.170/2025 registered at Police Station Aheri, District Gadchiroli for the offence punishable under Sections 65(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 3.

It is alleged that the police seized the vehicle for the illegal transportation of liquor. The vehicle is in the name of this applicant.

4.

The learned Counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant gave the said vehicle to his friend Vyankatesh Shukunwar and he took the said vehicle for a picnic. He came to know that the vehicle was seized by the Police. The applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle. He has purchased the said vehicle from one Sheikh Ibrahim. He was not aware about said transport of illegal liquor. This Court has already protected him by granting ad interim anticipatory bail.

5.

The learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that there is earlier antecedent against this applicant. As he has not attended the proceeding in Crime No.858/2019, the Court has closed the proceedings. Same

2 14.aba.641.25 vehicle was found in earlier offence also. Hence, prayed to reject the application.

6.

Heard both the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

7.

The antecedent is not suppressed by this applicant. One antecedent is there. Considering that the applicant is the owner of the said vehicle, the ad interim protection granted by this Court is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

8.

The application stands disposed of.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) RGurnule