Allowed

Shankar Shivaji Dhale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Oct 2021ABA/1820/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the single judge allowed the petition filed by an apprehending arrest under the NDPS Act. The Court noted the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed, finding no necessity for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed; ad-interim protection granted on 20th August 2021 is confirmed and made absolute.

Shankar Shivaji Dhale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

3-ABA-1820-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1820 OF 2021

¶5

SHANKAR SHIVAJI DHALE )...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

)...RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Omkar Nagvekar i/b.
Ms.Prabha Badadare, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶10

Smt.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

Mr.Suhas Jagtap, Police Inspector, Sangola Police Station present
in Court.

¶12

CORAM:V. G. BISHT, J.
DATE:12th OCTOBER 2021

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

1 The present application has been moved by the

¶15

applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

¶16

apprehending arrest under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and

¶17

Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) registered vide Crime

¶18

No.716 of 2021 with Police Station Sangola.

¶19

avk 1/4

¶20

3-ABA-1820-2021.doc

¶21

2It is the case of the prosecution that informant Police
Sub-Inspector Nale received confidential information on 6th June
2021 that at about 10.00 p.m. one Kumar Jadhav is going to
transport gunny bags containing Ganja in Mahindra pick up van to
Pandharpur. Accordingly, the raid was carried out by intercepting
Mahendra pick up van and driver namely Kumar Jadhav (A-1)
provided information that the pick up van was owned by one
Suresh Kamble (A-2). When the search of the pick up van was
carried out, some empty crates were found and behind the empty
crates 11 gunny bags with the caption “CP broiler Finisher”
containing ganja were there. After carrying out necessary
formalities of seizure, the informant lodged the report.

¶22

3Mr.A.P.Mundargi, learned senior Advocate for the

¶23

applicant, submits that the First Information Report (FIR) does not
disclose the name of the applicant as an accused or proposed
accused and no role is suggested or assigned to the applicant
either by the informant or the police or by any accused. According
to the learned senior Advocate the investigation is already over

¶24

avk 2/4

¶25

3-ABA-1820-2021.doc

¶26

and the charge-sheet has been filed and in such circumstances,
there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant.

¶27

4Smt.Sonawane, learned APP, on the other hand, fairly
submits that the investigation is over and the charge-sheet has
already been filed. The Investigating Officer is also present. I have
heard the Investigating Officer and he also confirms the
submission that since the charge-sheet has been filed, there is no
necessity of custodial interrogation.

¶28

5I have carefully gone through the contents of the FIR
and as also the investigation papers. It appears from the record
that the name of the present applicant came to be revealed by
accused nos.5 and 6. Except that, there is nothing on record to
show the role of the present applicant in the alleged offence. It
needs to be kept in mind that the investigation is already over
leading to the filing of the charge-sheet. This fact is also fairly
admitted by the Investigating Officer and as also about non-
requirement of applicant’s custodial interrogation.

¶29

avk 3/4

¶30

3-ABA-1820-2021.doc

¶31

6 In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the

¶32

application. Hence the following order :

¶33

ORDER

¶34

1 The application is allowed.

¶35

2 The ad-interim protection granted by this Court on 20^th

¶36

August 2021 is confirmed and made absolute.

¶37

3 The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶39

ARTI VILAS KHATATE

¶40

Digitally signed by ARTI VILASKHATATE Date: 2021.10.12 14:32:19 +0530

¶41

avk 4/4

Shankar Shivaji Dhale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Shivaji Dhale 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

Nilesh Ramesh Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Aashiyana Builders Firm(Lonavla), a Partnership Firm Thr. Partners Aslam I. Merchant and Ors. Vs Saroj Bhogilal Solanki and Ors.

Pranlal Mohanlal Vadhera Vs Mak Estates and Properties Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai- 400058

Shankar Shivaji Dhale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Salman Mehraj Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pallavi Arun Waghole Vs the State of Maharashtra