This judgment rejects an application for anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and Motor Vehicles Act, where the applicant was accused of obstructing Excise officials and causing an accident.
Application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
909-aba-318-23.odt
PMB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 318 OF 2023
Digitally signed by PRADNYA PRADNYA MAKARAND MAKARAND BHOGALE BHOGALE Date: 2023.02.03 10:22:04 +0530
Vikrant Dipak Raut ..Applicant VS The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
Adv. Ashish Satpute a/w Adv. Amit Icham for the Applicant. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 1, 2023
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.
2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 307, 353 read with Section 34, 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in connection with C.R. No.367 of 2022 dated 18/11/2022 registered with Talasari Police Station, Palghar.
3. The FIR was registered on 18/11/2022 for the incident which took place on 17/11/2022. The allegation of the
1/3
PMB
909-aba-318-23.odt
complainant Shri Mahesh Prakash Dhanshetty working as an Excise Inspector, Dahanu is that they received the information about two pickup vans which were transporting unauthorized liquor. The applicant was driving an empty pickup vehicle. The unauthorized liquor was in the other vehicle. When the officials of the Excise Department were chasing the said pickup vehicle which was carrying unauthorized liquor, the applicant who was driving the empty pickup vehicle obstructed them from discharging their duties and gave a dash to the complainant’s vehicle. As a result of this, the vehicle belonging to the Excise Department suffered an accident and the occupants suffered injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that false allegations are levelled against the applicant. He submits that the injuries suffered by the Excise Department officials are simple in nature. It is further contended that the applicant was not driving the vehicle which had the unauthorized liquor.
5. I have gone through the FIR. The informant has
2/3
909-aba-318-23.odt
PMB
described the manner in which the vehicle which was driven by the applicant. The vehicle of the first informant turned turtle on the side of the road and landed in a ditch. The applicant was driving the pickup vehicle without the number plate. Both the vehicles have been seized. The co-accused has been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court.
6. Considering the nature of the accusations, though the vehicles have been seized, in my opinion, this is not a fit
case to grant the relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant.
7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in the present case.
Whether the case is fit for granting relief of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vikrant Dipak Raut
The State of Maharashtra
M. S. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
