Manoj S/O Motiram Dorlikar v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Bajaj Nagar Ps Dist Nagpur

1/5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date:

2025.04.18 13:29:34 +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 967 OF 2025 RAHUL KUMAR HARINATH PAL ..... APPLICANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..... RESPONDENT Mr.Balasaheb Gunda Ligade for the Applicant.

Mr.Avinash A. Naik, A.P.P. for the State.

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 15th APRIL, 2025 P.C. :- This application is filed for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.0099/2025 dated 8th February, 2025 registered with Bhoiwada Police Station, Thane City for the offence punishable under Sections 123, 223, 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 26(2)(i), 26(2)(iv), 27(3)(d), 27(3)(e), 3(1)(zz)(iv) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

2.

Based on the complaint, an FIR has been lodged. The role of the present applicants is mentioned in the said FIR. 3.

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was

2/5 not present on the spot when the police conducted the raid. There is no antecedent as far as the present applicant is concerned. The applicant is ready to co-operate with the police. The custody of the present applicant is not at all necessary.

4.

The learned A.P.P. submits that the brother of the present applicant has specifically mentioned that the room in which the banned substance have found belongs to the present applicant. The owner of the said room also mentioned that she had given the said room to the present applicant on rental basis for the purpose of carrying out business. The police have seized and sealed the prohibited goods worth Rs.2,36,700/-. The police seized the said goods in presence of panchas and prepared Panchnama on the spot itself. The presence of the present applicant would be necessary in order to find out from where the present applicant has found this banned goods and to whom the said goods were supposed to be delivered.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have considered the documents on record.

6.

There is no dispute that the present applicant is in possession of the said room in which the banned substance were found by the

3/5 police. The police has seized the goods worth Rs.2,36,700/-. The Investigating Officer has also obtained the tenancy agreement of the subject room wherein the present applicant is shown as a tenant. The brother of the present applicant has informed that the present applicant is in possession of the said room in which the raid was conducted.

7.

The applicant has been absconding and has not co-operated with the police to give the details from where the present applicant has obtained the said banned goods and to whom the said goods were to be delivered.

8.

The learned Single Judge of this Court (Sarang V. Kotwal, J.) in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 207 of 2024 has held that the banned food articles are liable to be confiscated and there is a deep rooted conspiracy and once the FIR is disclosing the names of the persons, the investigation will be necessary. Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said order read as under:- "24.

Section 328 of IPC is non-bailable, section 511 of IPC in the context of section 328 of IPC is also non-bailable. The banned food articles are liable to be confiscated by the State. Yet they were being misappropriated by selling them. As submitted by the learned Advocate General, the source of these goods, whether it is a stolen property, who is the receiver of stolen property is being investigated. There is angle of deep rooted conspiracy as well. All these offences, though not specifically mentioned in the proforma of the FIR; are seen

4/5 from the facts of the present case. This needs immediate investigation as submitted by the learned Advocate General. 25.

Considering the above discussion, it is quite clear that the investigation into this offence needs to be carried out with utmost seriousness and sincerity. In the present case, therefore the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is absolutely necessary."

9.

The findings recorded in the above order passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 207 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court will clearly apply to the present proceedings. 10.

So also, recently, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : R. N. Laddha, J.) in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1967 of 2024 has held that the Gukta business is an organized crime against society with inter-State implications, involving violations of Central Excise and Income-Tax laws. Paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the said order reads as under :- 6.

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the applicant holds the license for the shop in question. The leave and license agreement expressly prohibits storing any banned items on the premises. Prima facie, there is substantial material implicating the applicant in the crime. Moreover, the applicant has criminal antecedents, including two prior incidents of a similar nature. The underground gutka business is an organised crime against society with inter-State implications, involving violations of Central Excise and Income-tax laws. It is imperative to curb such criminal activity, necessitating a thorough investigation with utmost seriousness into the illegal manufacturing, supply, distribution, and sale of these prohibited items.

5/5 7.

It is a settled position in law that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary. While it has been acknowledged in many instances that regular bail is considered a general rule, the same analogy cannot be applied to anticipatory bail. The decision to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised with careful and prudent discretion by the Court, considering each case's specific circumstances. A straight jacket formula cannot be applied. While exercising this power, the Court must exercise caution, as granting protection in serious cases could potentially lead to a miscarriage of justice or hinder the investigation by allowing tampering or destruction of evidence. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282.

11.

In the present proceedings, the applicant is in legal possession of the subject room in which the police has conducted raid and found out banned goods worth Rs.2,36,700/-. There is an angle of deep rooted conspiracy. Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is non-bailable. According to me, no case is made out to grant prearrest bail to the applicant. For the purpose of investigation, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.

12.

In view of the same, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]