Dismissed

Prashant Dhanpal Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jul 2023ABA/592/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC. The applicant, apprehending arrest for offences regarding prohibited substances, argued against implicating him. The court refused bail due to criminal antecedents, the nature of allegations involving racketeering, and the need for further investigation into the supply chain and purchasers.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected. No pre-arrest protection granted. No costs awarded to the applicant.

1.Apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No.94 of 2023 dated 30 January 2023 registered Loni-Kalbhor Police Station, Taluka Haveli, District Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 272, 273, 328 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Sections 30(2)(a), 26(2)(i), (26)(2)(iv) of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006, Rules 2, 3, 4 read with 3(i) (zz) read with 59 of Prohibition and Registration of Sales Rules, 2011, the applicant is seeking relief of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2.The case of prosecution is that on 28 January 2023 Unit of complaint received information about abscond accused and while on patrolling at about 23.45, they found pick up jeep parked and on suspicion inquired with driver and accompanied person and at

3.Apprehending arrest, the applicant filed application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Court rejected the application by order dated 3 February 2023. The applicant has, therefore, filed present anticipatory bail application.

4.Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not been named in the first information report. He has been falsely implicated. According to him, thee is no material to show that the applicant has administered contraband substance. The prohibited substances has been seized and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. He is ready to cooperate with the investigation.

5.Per contra, learned APP opposed the anticipatory bail application. She submitted that there are criminal antecedents to the discredit of the applicant. Learned APP submitted that the applicant is in the business of supplying prohibited substances. It is necessary to unearth traces of larger supply of banned substances. She submitted that the coordinate Benches of this Court in case of Sagar Sadashiv Kore v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 6568 and in Ankush v. State, through PSO, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 11384 and Pathan Shafi Khan Rehemat Khan v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13367 and unreported

judgment of this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No.483 of 2021 (Mohammed Ali Raheman Alias Mohammed Ali Abdul Raheman Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra) decided on 24 March 2021 refused to grant pre-arrest protection to the applicants therein having similar role attributed to the applicants therein.

6.I have considered the submissions on behalf of both the sides. Prima facie, prohibited substance was seized from co- accused who named the present applicant. Considering the nature of allegations against the applicant, it is necessary that detailed investigation as regards existence of any racket operating in prohibited substance need to be investigated. It is also necessary to investigate source of such supply and acquisition. It is also necessary to investigate into the names and identity of purchasers of the prohibited substance from the applicant. There are criminal antecedents to the discredit of the applicant.

“8.It is not in dispute that Gutka (chewing tobacco made from crushed areca nut, tobacco, catechu, paraffin wax, slaked lime etc.) and Pan Masala (combination of betel leaf and areca nut with or without tobacco) are seriously detrimental to health and the consumption thereof is identified as a major cause of oral cancer. The said products contain carcinogens and are known to be highly addictive. The State Government has exercised, from time to time, the statutory power under the FSS Act to prohibit the manufacture, storage, distribution and transport or sale of tobacco, whether flavoured, scented or mixed with other ingredients such as nicotine, menthol etc.”

8.The coordinate Bench has relied upon an unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) in the case of Zahir Ibrahim Panja v. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application No.4968 of 2016.

9.In the case of Pathan Shafi Khan Rehemat Khan (supra), co-ordinate Bench of this Court has conisered the issues of applicability of Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. I respectfully agree with the views taken by the co-ordinate Bench.

Prashant Dhanpal Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Dhanpal Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashi Manish Singal Vs Manish Om Prakash Singal

Manoj Baliram Dhumal Vs State of Maharashtra

Tangamani Ayya Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Rajendra Malbharer Vs State of Maharashtra

Virendra Chandrakant Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Bhaurao Khare Vs State of Maharashtra