Allowed

Dhanshree Dhanchandra Marathe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Dec 2023ABA/386/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application regarding charges under the Essential Commodities Act. The court converted the interim bail order dated 8 February 2023 into an absolute order, noting the applicant's absence in the crime video clip. Application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The order of interim bail dated 8 February 2023 was made absolute on the existing terms and conditions.

Dhanshree Dhanchandra Marathe Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:38337

¶2

37 aba 386 of 2023.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.386 OF 2023

¶4

Dhanshree Dhanchandra Marathe … Applicant

¶5

versus State of Maharashtra

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

Ms. Prabha Badadare i/by Mr. B.H.Goswami, for Applicant. Mr. S.H.Yadav, APP for State. Mr.V.J.Bhosale, API, Shrinagar Police Station, Thane, present.

¶8

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 18 DECEMBER 2023

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.19 of

¶12

2023 registered with Shrinagar Police Station, Thane City, for for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 7, 8, and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶13

When the application was listed before this Court on 8 February 2023, this Court was persuaded to grant bail observing, inter alia, as under :

¶14

“3.The applicant’s deceased husband was running a general store by name ‘Vijaya General Store’ since 1983. By a letter dated 29/08/1998, Controller Rationing, Mumbai granted permission to the applicant's deceased husband to run rationing shop and the same was to run from 04/09/1998 and accordingly the said general store was converted into authorised rationing shop with number 36F186. The applicant’s husband was unable to run the shop and therefore offered the accused no.2 – Pramod Jaiswal to run the shop independently using the license of the husband of the applicant. In

¶15

SSP 1/3

¶16

37 aba 386 of 2023.doc

¶17

2017, the husband of the applicant died. The license of the rationing shop was transferred in the name of the applicant. The accused no. 2 continued to run shop as he was doing during the life time of husband of the applicant. The applicant being a widow allowed accused no.2 to run the shop. So far as the FIR is concerned, it is alleged that the accused no.2 along with servants was found committing the act which is an offence punishable under the aforesaid sections. The video clip was made as regards the allegations of black marketing. The co-accused are seen in the video who are alleged to have committed misappropriation of the foodgrains. Considering the nature of the accusations, prima facie, in my opinion, the custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary. The application is however to co-operate with the investigation. The case for grant of interim protection is made out.”

¶18

Perused the allegations in the FIR. The role attributed to the applicant is

¶19

that she is the holder of the licence of the fair price shop. The presence of the applicant is not reflected in the video clip in which the co-accused Pramod was allegedly seen transporting the grains to be supplied in the public distribution system. I am, therefore, impelled to make the order of interim bail absolute.

¶20

Hence, the following order :

¶21

(i) The order of interim bail dated 8 February 2023 is made absolute

¶22

on the terms and conditions incorporated therein.

¶23

(ii) The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the

¶24

jurisdictional Court.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in the identical activity for which

¶26

SSP 2/3

¶27

37 aba 386 of 2023.doc

¶28

she has been arraigned in this case.

¶29

(iv) The application stands disposed.

¶30

(v) It is, however, clarified that the observations are confined to the

¶31

consideration of entitlement for pre-arrest bail and the trial Court shall not be

¶32

influenced by any of the observations in further proceedings.

¶33

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶34

SSP 3/3

Dhanshree Dhanchandra Marathe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanshree Dhanchandra Marathe 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

Siddharth Neminath Salunke Vs State of Maharashtra

Shamit Shashikant Bamb Vs State of Maharashtra

Sidhesh Rushikesh Bhalerao Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aashish Shantaram Sathe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Ganpati Chopde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandipan Misal Vs State of Maharashtra