Shaikh Sohail Shaikh Mukhtar v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Nandura Tq Nandura Dist Buldhana

aba663.2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.663/2025 (Shaikh Sohail Shaikh Mukhtar 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. M.R. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.A. Thakare, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State. CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

DATED: 4.11.2025.

The applicant is apprehending arrest in Crime No.206/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 136 of the Electricity Act. 2.

The Assistant Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L., Nandura, District Buldhana has lodged the complaint against unknown person. Father of the applicant was arrested and during his custodial interrogation, he made disclosure that the theft was committed by the applicant, who is his son.

3.

The learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that as the statement is made by the co-accused, it is not admissible. The applicant has not committed any offence. On the basis of statement made by the co-accused crime cannot be registered against the applicant. Hence, prayed to protect him by granting anticipatory bail.

4.

The learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that custody of the applicant is necessary as the property is seized from godown and he is the person who can disclose to whom he has sold the property and his custodial interrogation is necessary. There are antecedents against this applicant. Similar type of offences are

aba663.2025.odt committed by this applicant. During on bail he has committed similar offences and, therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, prayed to reject the application.

5.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.

Though the co-accused has disclosed the name of this applicant, during investigation the property is seized from the godown of this applicant, similar offences are committed by this applicant while he was on bail in earlier offences. Considering the requirement of custodial interrogation of this applicant, the application is rejected. (MRS.VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J.) Tambaskar.

Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/11/2025 18:10:50