Allowed

Sarveshkumar Ramdevan Shahi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Oct 2021BA/1579/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bail application allowed. Applicant sought bail for alleged pilferage of 42,000 litres of diesel. Court noted substantial recovery of loot and release of co-accusedes, finding a case for bail on standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 15,000/- with sureties in the like amount, alongside conditions not to influence witnesses and to attend trial.

Sarveshkumar Ramdevan Shahi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1/346 BA 1579.21.doc

¶2

Dusane

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1579 OF 2021

¶5

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

¶6

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2021.10.29 15:53:36 +0530

¶7

Sarveshkumar Ramdevan Shahi

¶8

....
Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra ....
Respondent

¶11

Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi i/by Swarali Joglekar for Applicant.
Ms. A.A. Takalkar, APP for State.
ACP, Mr. Sardar N. Patil, Crime Branch (Prev.) Thane City

¶12

Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Date : 28TH OCTOBER, 2021

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.In an offence being Crime No. 18 of 2018 after arrest on

¶15

11th February, 2021, the applicant came to be charge-sheeted through a

¶16

supplementary charge-sheet.

¶17

2.The prosecution case is, pilferage of High Flash High Speed

¶18

Diesel was to be transported by the applicant, who is main stakeholder.

¶19

The applicant instead of supplying 74 KL. (74,000 litres) of diesel to the

¶20

consumer diverted the stock to the extent of 42 KL. (42,000 litres).

¶21

Dusane

¶22

2/346 BA 1579.21.doc

¶23

3.The submissions are, there are numbers of stakeholders in

¶24

the issue of transportation of diesel and it is difficult to infer that the
applicant was only present at whose behest supplies were diverted.

¶25

4. It is further claimed that the applicant has already suffered

¶26

since more than eight months and he is very much available for the
prosecution. It is claimed that there are no antecedents.

¶27

5.Learned APP submits that apart from extra judicial
confession given by co-accused, the investigation ultimately points out
that the applicant is the beneficiary of pilferage.

¶28

6. I have considered the submissions.

¶29

7.It is noted from the investigation that from the two tankers,

¶30

the stock that was pilferaged to the extent of 42 KL. (42,000 litres) is
already recovered from Thane and Indore.

¶31

8. Apart from above, the fact remains that all other accused

¶32

are already released on bail. In that view in my opinion, a case for grant
of bail is made out. The application is allowed on following conditions :

¶33

Dusane

¶34

3/346 BA 1579.21.doc

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

(i)The applicant be released on bail in Crime No. 18 of 2018,
registered with Kopri Police Station, for the offence punishable under
Sections 109, 114, 212, 407, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 7, 8 and 10 of the Essential
Commodities Act r/w the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel
(Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices)
Order, 2005 on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of 15,000/- with one or
more sureties in the like amount.

¶37

(ii)The applicant shall neither influence the prosecution
witnesses in any manner nor tamper with the evidence.

¶38

(iii)The applicant shall attend the trial regularly.

¶39

(iv) If there are 2 consecutive defaults in appearing before the
trial Court, prosecution will be at liberty to apply for cancellation of
Applicant’s bail.

¶40

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

Sarveshkumar Ramdevan Shahi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarveshkumar Ramdevan Shahi 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

Jesuwin Cherian and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pharma Company through Authorized Person Shri, Girish Jaiwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Ashok Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivshankar Ramnath Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tufail Ahmad H. Rahman Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajeev Udaibhan Singh Vs Seema Rajeev Singh