Allowed

Vinod S/O Pundlikrao Jadhao v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Mangrulpir Tah. Mangrulpir Dist.Washim

Bombay HC9 Feb 2022ABA/711/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Application 711/2021, the High Court at Nagpur granted absolute pre-arrest bail to the applicant, a businessman accused of illegal stockpiling of wheat under the Essential Commodities Act. The Court held that since goods were seized, investigation concluded, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the applicant was entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed and disposed of; interim order dated 26.10.2021 made absolute.

2.This is an application for pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 1298/2020 registered with the Police Station Mangrulpir, Tah. Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim for offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Inspection Officer (Informant) namely Rupali Keshaorao Solanke, as per direction dated 24.11.2020 received from the Collector, Washim and Sub-Divisonal Officer, Mangrulpir that the applicant has illegally stocked the food-grains in his Godown Nos. 1 and 2, Gopalkrushna Nagari, Wada Road, Murtijapur, Mangrulpir, the said Godowns were sealed. The Inspection Officer and other have started inspection of the articles stored in the Godowns from 25.11.2020 to 27.11.2020. The Inspection Officer found that in all 602

bags of wheat admesuring 100 kg each were illegally stored in the Godowns. Hence First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is contended that the food-grains were stocked illegally to gain profit.

3.On the basis of above allegation, it is contended that there are no allegations against the applicant that he had committed breach of any order under the Essential Commodities Act. It is contended that the applicant is having valid licence to purchase food-grains from the market. It is contended that after seizure of goods, the applicant produced receipts of the seized goods before the Collector but, they were not properly considered. It is contended that applicant is a businessman. After seizure, applicant appeared before the Collector claiming his ownership over the seized food-grains. He applied for returning the said goods, but the said application was rejected. It is contended that the stock of food-grains are already seized, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and he prayed for bail.

4.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP on behalf of State. Perused FIR. It is alleged against the applicant that he stored 602 bags of wheat illegally in his Godown Nos. 1 and 2. Admittedly, the applicant is having licence to deal with the food-grains in

APMC Market. It is basic contention of the applicant that he has purchased seized food-grains from the market. He has produced on record the receipt of said food-grains which are not accepted by the Collector and seized goods are already confiscated. The incident occurred in the month of November 2020. The entire investigation is over. The custodial interrogation of applicant is not required.

5.The applicant raised contention that the person who charged under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, is required to commit breach of order issued under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, but in the present case, there is no allegation against the applicant that he breached the order issued under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act.

6.On perusal of FIR, it appears that the good are seized on suspicion that those were stored illegally. The applicant has produced receipt of seized goods before the Authority. But, the contention of the applicant are not accepted by the Collector and ultimately, goods are confiscated. In view of these facts, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant is entitled for pre-arrerst bail. Hence, I pass the following order:-

(II)Order dated 26.10.2021 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and condition with a direction that the applicant shall attend concerned Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

Vinod S/O Pundlikrao Jadhao v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Mangrulpir Tah. Mangrulpir Dist.Washim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod S/O Pundlikrao Jadhao v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Mangrulpir Tah. Mangrulpir Dist.Washim

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

Sanjay S/O Shivshankar Shukla Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Arni Dist.Yavatmal

Amol S/O Murlidhar Jawanjal Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Walgaon Tq.Amravati Dist.Amravati

Akshay S/O Dnyaneshwar Rankhamb Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Wadgaon Road Police Station, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal and Another

Baldev Shivaram Ingle Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Old City, Akola.

Iqbal Khan S/O. Khurshid Khan Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Civil Lines, Akola

Aakash S/O Bankat Yedani Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Kondhali Dist.Nagpur and Another