Vilas S/O Pundlikrao Kahale v. State of Maharashtra through Its Pso, Ps Ghugus Distt Chandrapur

Bombay HC10 Oct 2012ABA/367/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for anticipatory bail, the applicant, a licensed poppy straw dealer, sought protection against arrest alleging potential offence under NDPS Act. The court rejected the application, noting dissimilarities in the sale register and inconclusive investigation findings, while also disallowing time to approach the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection vacated; application under Section 438 CrPC rejected.

Vilas S/O Pundlikrao Kahale Vs State of Maharashtra through… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 aba367.12.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.367 OF 2012

¶4

(VILAS PUNDLIKRAO KAHALE..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. P.S.O. P.S.GHUGGUS DIST. CHANDRAPUR)

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

¶9

CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 10, 2012.

¶10

Heard Mr.R.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nitin Rode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶11

The applicant is apprehending arrest for the offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant is licenced dealer of Poppy Straw. The applicant is authorized to sell Poppy Straw weighing 450 gms. to one customer. Sale of more than that at one time obviously is contravention to the licencing condition, which amounts to an offence under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act. One Ajitsingh was apprehended by police who was found in possession of 4.787 kgs. of poppy straw powder. It is alleged that said Ajitsingh had stated before the police that he had purchased said poppy straw powder from the applicant at one time. On the basis of his statement, the investigation continued further. During the course of investigation the applicant had approached this Court and he has been granted interim protection.

¶12

During the period when the applicant was protected by this Court further investigation continued and some registers, including sale register, have been seized by the Investigating Officer. It is seen from the sale register that there is frequent sale in the name of few selected

¶13

2 aba367.12.odt

¶14

persons. What is pertinent to note is that the signatures at various places of one and the same person are not similar. There is noticeable dissimilarity between signatures of one and the same person. The State, therefore, alleges that the modus-operandi of the applicant is to show sale in the name of some persons and sale the said quantity to one person in bulk by charging more than the market price.

¶15

Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the applicant has got another 4-5 businesses and he will not indulge in such a petty offence. It is submitted that poppy straw business originally belongs to father of the applicant and that the applicant is maintaining all the records of the sale and purchase and he has submitted all the returns to the State Excise Department. It is submitted that the custody of the applicant is not at all necessary. Specimen signatures of the applicant are taken by the police. The disputed documents have been seized and that further investigation can be carried out without custody of the applicant.

¶16

Mr. Joshi has submitted that the applicant has been directed to produce ten persons whose names have frequently appeared in the sale register. It is submitted that it is not necessary for the applicant to comply with this condition. Mr. Joshi in this respect is right inasmuch as it is for the Investigating Officer to locate those persons and record their statements. It is noted that some of the statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer and most of the witnesses have stated that they have purchased poppy straw once or twice from the applicant and the repeated sale shown in their names is not correct record.

¶17

In these circumstances, no case is made out for grant of relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application stands rejected. Interim relief stands vacated.

¶18

3 aba367.12.odt

¶19

The learned counsel Mr. Joshi prays for two weeks' time to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In my considered opinion, the prayer is unreasonable and cannot be granted.

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

RRaut..

Vilas S/O Pundlikrao Kahale v. State of Maharashtra through Its Pso, Ps Ghugus Distt Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilas S/O Pundlikrao Kahale v. State of Maharashtra through Its Pso, Ps Ghugus Distt Chandrapur

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

Govinda S/O Sitaram Gharpende Vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Kalamna Nagpur

Shrichand S/O Mohanlal Setiya Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Bramhapuri

Moreshwar S/O Pandhari Misar Vs State of Maharshtra through Pso Brahmpuri

Atique Mohammad Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso , Wadgaon Road Ps Yavatmal

Jagdamba Krida Va Shaikshanik Social Welfare Asso. Chikhli Thr. President Prakash N Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Ministry of Home Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Jagdish @ Jagya Wasudeo Lanjewar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Commissioner of Police and Others