Dismissed

Vaibhav Sadashiv Bhise and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Dec 2018ABA/2657/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay considered an anticipatory bail application filed by accused persons in an unauthorized sand mining case under Section 379 IPC. Finding the allegations serious, involving theft of government property and environmental harm by a government officer, the court rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail is rejected; the applicants do not deserve protection under Section 438 CrPC.

Vaibhav Sadashiv Bhise and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

ssm 1 911-aba2657.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2657 OF 2018

¶5

Vaibhav Sadashiv Bhise & Anr.

¶6

….Applicants.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent.

¶9

Mr. V.R. Gaikwad for the Applicants. Mr. Amit Palkar APP, for the RespondentState.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 21^st DECEMBER, 2018.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

This is an Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prearrest bail in C.R. No. 380 of 2018 registered with Vaduj Police Station, District Satara under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and the learned APP. Perused the record of investigation.

¶14

3 It is the case of prosecution that, the Applicants along with other 4 accused persons were illegally excavating sand from the banks of river Chand near village Chitali, Taluka Khanapur, District Sangli. After receipt of information, when the members of the Vigilance

¶15

1/3

¶16

ssm 2 911-aba2657.18.doc

¶17

Committee (Dakshata Samittee) established under the circular issued by the State of Maharashtra along with the Talathi of the said village went at the scene of offence, the Applicants fled away. The Talathi and other members of Vigilance Committee accosted the coaccused Nikhil Daware, Suraj Madane and Vaibhav Madane. The said accused persons were uploading illegally excavated sand in the truck. It is the further prosecution case that, about 25 brass of sand has been illegally excavated by the Applicants and other accused persons.

¶18

4 The learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that, the Vigilance Committee established allegedly under the Government circular, has no legal sanctity as it consists of more than 5 members. The Applicants were objecting to the constitution of the said Committee and therefore, the Applicants have been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that, the said Truck and other machinery have already been seized by the police and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the Applicants in the present crime is not necessary. He therefore, prayed that, the Applicants may be granted prearrest bail.

¶19

5 The record indicates that, the Applicants do not have any license from the Government to excavate sand from the said river.

¶20

2/3

¶21

ssm 3 911-aba2657.18.doc

¶22

Even otherwise, the allegation of commission of theft of government property is undoubtedly a serious allegation. The illegal excavation of sand is causing serious environmental problem. The first informant is a government officer and has no personal grudge or grievance against the Applicants to falsely implicate them in the present crime.

¶23

It is to be noted here that, the illegal excavation of the

¶24

sand is causing serious environmental issues and with a view to prevent the said illegal excavation and/or theft of natural resources, the Government of Maharashtra has issued Circular for establishment of Vigilance Committee in the villages.

¶25

6 After taking into consideration the material of

¶26

investigation, serious allegations against the Applicants and the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the view that, the Applicants do not deserve to be protected by prearrest bail.

¶27

7 Application is accordingly rejected.

¶28

3/3

Vaibhav Sadashiv Bhise and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Sadashiv Bhise and Anr. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Premchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jayram Shankar Gangurde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pushpa Appasaheb Kolekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tirthagiri Mohangiri Gosavi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jamsheed Ahmed Iftekar Amhed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bajrang Tukaram Mote and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra