Allowed

Tushar Dagdu Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Mar 2010APPLN/725/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application No. 725 of 2010, the Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to a Sales Officer of BPCL accused of conniving with an LPG dealer. The court held that mere delinquency of duty without evidence of active connivance suffered to warrant a grant of bail subject to surety and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail subject to furnishing a surety of Rs. 25,000 and reporting to the police station.

Tushar Dagdu Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.725 OF 2010

¶4

Mr. Tushar D. Jagtap...Applicant.
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and anr...Respondents.

¶5

Mr.P.D.Desai for the Applicant.
Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP. For the State.

¶6

CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J.
 DATE : 17th March, 2010

¶7

PC :

¶8

1This is an application for grant of

¶9

anticipatory bail made by the applicant who is the
Sales Officer of BPCL which is a Govt. owned oil

¶10

company and a public sector undertaking engaged in
business of refining and marketing of petroleum
products, running LPG bottling plants, distribution
networks etc. It appears to be the allegation that
one dealer by name Swagat Gas Agency distributed

¶11

LPG cylinders to the persons who were mis-

¶12

¶13

utilizing the said cylinders for unauthorized
purpose like use of vehicles and other commercial
activities. In so far as present applicant is
concerned, he is prima facie not directly
connected with the acts of dealer against whom
allegations are made. The learned A.P.P. contends
that under Order 9 of the Liquified Petroleum Gas
(Regulation of use in Motor Vehicles) Order 2001
the present applicant has got power of search,
seizure and to take action against the use of
unauthorized sale of cylinders. It is contended
that he has not exercised this power. It is also
the case of the prosecution that by not exercising
this power he has connived with the dealer. It is
fairly conceded that apart from the mention of name
in the F.I.R. and the show cause notice issued by
the Tahsildar, Manmad, there is no other material
collected in the investigation to indicate any

¶14

active connivance on the part of the present

¶15

applicant. Mere deliriction of duty may, by
itself, amount to a criminal offence. In the

¶16

¶17

circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory
bail. It is directed that on furnishing surety in

¶18

the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like
amount, the applicant may be released on bail
subject to condition that the applicant will
report to Manmad Police Station between 11.a.m. and
3.00 p.m. on 22.3.2010 and 23.3.2010 or any other
day when the Investigating Officer may call him for
investigation by notice in writing and subject to
the further condition that he will not tamper with
the witnesses and evidence. It is made clear that
these observation will not be used by the trial
court at the stage of trial. Application is
disposed off.

¶19

3All the concerned to act on a copy of this
order duly authenticated by the registry of this

¶20

court.

¶21

( R.S. MOHITE, J.)

Tushar Dagdu Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Dagdu Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vitthal Pandurang Ghopal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vitthal Pandurang Ghopal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jitnarayan Tiwari D.H. Omkarnath Jitnarayan Tiwari Vs Jyoti Laxman Kola.

Ashok Ratanchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramrudavan Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandip Bhikan Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra