Dismissed

Prashant Gaudramlu Bairagoni v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Apr 2022ABA/179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by a driver accused of transporting illicit liquor under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The court held that bail is denied because the accused fled the raid site before seizure completion, precluding anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected as the accused fled the scene of the crime, and Section 438 CrPC cannot be exercised in such circumstances.

Prashant Gaudramlu Bairagoni Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

aba-179-2022.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.179 OF 2022

¶4

PRASHANT S/O GAUDRAMLU BAIRAGONI VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶6

Mr. S. C. Bhosle, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. V. M. Kagne, APP for the respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
Reserved on : 08.03.2022
Pronounced on: 05.04.2022

¶8

ORDER:-

¶9

.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.456 of 2021 registered with State Excise Flying Squad Department,
Nanded, Dist. Nanded for the offence punishable under Sections 65(e),
80, 81, 83, 90 and 108 of Maharashtra Prohibition Act.

¶10

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. C. Bhosle for the applicant and

¶11

learned APP Mr. V. M. Kagne for the respondent – State.

¶12

3.It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that
the applicant has been falsely implicated. The allegations are general in
nature. The Sections under which the offence is registered are not
applicable. No specific role is attributed to the applicant. Nothing has

¶13

(1)

¶14

aba-179-2022.odt

¶15

been seized from him. The applicant is ready to abide by the terms of
the bail.

¶16

4.Per contra, learned APP strongly opposes the application and
submitted that raid was conducted by the Excise Department when they
received the information that liquor is being illegally transported. In
fact, the present applicant was driving Hyundai 120 Magna Four
Wheeler Car bearing No.AP-25 AF-6363 and from that vehicle, in all,
720 bottles of liquor was seized, so also one mobile was seized. When
the entire activity was going on, the accused fled away by taking
advantage of darkness. The physical custody of the applicant is
necessary, because it has been transpired that the liquor that was in the
bottle was not of standard quality and it is furious liquor. Investigation
has been done to that extent.

¶17

5.Perusal of the FIR would show that police had intercepted the
vehicle and while the seizure activity was going on, the accused fled
away from the spot by taking disadvantage of darkness. Now, he cannot
take advantage of his own wrong or illegal activity. He is not denying
that the said vehicle does not belong to him. The panchanama shows
that, in all, 720 bottles of liquor were seized from the spot. The police
papers also show that the sample was sent to the company whose label

¶18

(2)

¶19

aba-179-2022.odt

¶20

was affirmed on the bottle. The company has certified that sample is
not of the standard quality, which they maintain. It appears that it is
furious liquor. Definitely, case is not made out to exercise the powers of
this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
favour of such person, who has managed to flee away. Application,
therefore, stands rejected.

¶21

[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]

¶22

scm

¶23

(3)

Prashant Gaudramlu Bairagoni v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Gaudramlu Bairagoni 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

Shaikh Qayyum Shaikh Ibrahim Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imran Ali Ashraf Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satwaji Sadbaji Nandapurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ganesh Kalyan Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Hari Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Vijay Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another