Mahesh Dhanraj Kamble v. State Of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Guggus Dist Chandrapur

aba762.19.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.762/2019 Mahesh Dhanraj Kamble .vs. State of Maharashtra, through PSO P.S. Ghuggus, Dist. Chandrapur.

_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders of directions Court'

s or Judge'

s orders.

and Registrar'

s Orders.

Mr. M. N. Ali, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for non applicant-State. CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2019 Heard Mr. Ali, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Rode, learned A.P.P. for non applicant-State. Also perused the reply filed by the learned A.P.P. opposing the application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.268/2019 registered with Police Station, Ghuggus, Dist.Chandrapur for an offence punishable under Section 65(a) and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act read with Section 50 (1) (b), 177, 130/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Submission on behalf of learned counsel for applicant is that applicant was not found present on the spot when huge quantity of liquor was seized from Sumo Car and Mini Truck which was not having any registration number. Learned A.P.P. for the State would submit that on secret information when police party was doing patrolling duty on 07.10.2019 at 02.00 a.m., they found two vehicles in suspicious condition. On verification of the said vehicles,

aba762.19.odt the vehicles were found containing boxes of liquor. During the course of investigation, the investigator got lead from the co-accused that contraband belongs to the present applicant and he was transporting to sell the said in Chandrapur district where there is a ban for selling liquor. Though statement of co-accused is not admissible, that can always give a lead to the investigating officer for conducting further investigation. The learned A.P.P. has pointed out, by filing reply, that applicant is a habitual offender in respect of the offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and three offences are registered and those are pending. It appears that when the applicant is released either on anticipatory bail or regular bail, he has an inclination to repeat the offence.

In view of this, in my considered opinion, applicant is not a person in whose favour discretion can be exercised for releasing him on bail. The application is, therefore, rejected.

If the applicant surrenders before the Court and files an application for regular bail, the competent Court should take into account the fact that the applicant is having inclination to repeat the offence.

JUDGE kahale