Allowed

Dineshkumar Shambhubhai Ramanna v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC20 Sept 2024ABA/1545/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two anticipatory bail applications were addressed. The High Court ruled it a fit case to protect the applicants' liberty. They were granted bail on furnishing a bond with a surety and subjected to standard police custody conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; applicants released on bail upon furnishing a PR Bond of Rs. 15,000 each with one surety; direction to attend police station weekly.

Dineshkumar Shambhubhai Ramanna vs the State of Maharashtra… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

aba1543.24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

945 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1543 OF 2024

¶5

Bhavikumar Manubhai Patel

¶6

Dhruv Bhadreshbhai Thakkar ...Applicants

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & another …..Respondents

¶9

Mr. R. D. Sanap, Advocate holding for Mr. R. V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Applicants.

¶10

Mr. P. P. Dawalkar, APP for the State.

¶11

WITH

¶12

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1545 OF 2024

¶13

Dineshkumar Shambhubhai Ramanna ..… Applicants VERSUS

¶14

The State of Maharashtra & another .....Respondents

¶15

Mr. R. D. Sanap, Advocate holding for Mr. R. V. Naiknavare, Advocate for Applicants.

¶16

Mr. P. P. Dawalkar, APP for the State.

¶17

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 18^th OCTOBER, 2024.

¶18

PER COURT :

¶19

Leave to amend.

¶20

¶21

aba1543.24.odt

¶22

Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No. 0316/2024, registered with Tuljapur Police Station, Dist.Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(A), 3(2)(D), 7, 5, 9 and 19 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 5, 7, 19(C)(2), 21 Clause 8(3) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and Section 318(4), 336(2), 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶23

First informant is Taluka Agricultural Officer, Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. On 18.07.2024, when he was proceeding from Nilwade to Tuljapur, he came across with one truck in which the fertilizers were transported. Since he had suspicion for the same, he stopped the said vehicle. It is found that there were about 598 bags of fertilizer which is banned in the State of Maharashtra. Manufacturing of the said fertilizer is found to have been done in the State of Gujrat.

¶24

Learned counsel for Applicants submits that though the fertilizer which is seized is banned in the State of Maharashtra, there is no embargo to manufacture and sell the said fertilizer in the State of Gujrat. Learned APP on instructions from the Investigating Officer confirms the said fact. Learned counsel for Applicants submits that

¶25

¶26

aba1543.24.odt

¶27

even if it is accepted that manufacture and storage of the said fertilizer has been done by the present Applicants, there is no evidence to show that the Applicants themselves have brought the said fertilizer for sale in the State of Maharashtra.

¶28

Learned APP opposed the said submission by considering the statement of godown keeper who claims that the present Applicants used to sell the said fertilizer in other states as well as in the State of Gujrat. It is his submission that it is not a case of anticipatory bail.

¶29

Even if the contention of the first informant is accepted that the fertilizer which was being transported is banned in the State of Maharashtra, as far as present Applicants are concerned, from the material evidence on record, it may only be found that they were ever manufacturing or storing the said fertilizer in the godown situated in the State of Gujrat. Thus, manufacturing and storage of said fertilizer in the State of Gujrat can never be treated as an offence. There is nothing on record to indicate that the present Applicants had brought the said fertilizer for sale in the State of Maharashtra.

¶30

¶31

aba1543.24.odt

¶32

Having regard to these facts, it is a fit case to protect liberty of the Applicants. Hence, the following order :-

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) Both the applications are allowed.

¶35

(ii) In the event of arrest of applicants in connection with No. 0316/2024, registered with Tuljapur Police Station, Dist.Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(A), 3(2)(D), 7, 5, 9 and 19 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 5, 7, 19(C)(2), 21 Clause 8(3) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and Section 318(4), 336(2), 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, they be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount.

¶36

(iii) They shall attend the concerned police station once in a week.

¶37

(iv) They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶38

(v) They shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶39

¶40

aba1543.24.odt

¶41

(vi) They are further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation.

¶42

(vii) Learned APP to communicate this order to the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶43

( R. M. JOSHI) Judge

¶44

dyb

Dineshkumar Shambhubhai Ramanna v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dineshkumar Shambhubhai Ramanna v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uday Mahadev Jankar and Ors. vs Dnyandeep Co. Op Credit Soc. Ltd. Thr. Chirman and Ors.

Jugnibai Appa Solanki and Ors. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Shantirakshak Sahakari Gruh Rachna Sanstha Maryadit vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bhavikumar Manubhai Patel and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shailaja D/O Rajabhau Devkate @ Shailaja W/O Dattatraya Bachkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shashikant Dilip Bagde vs the State of Maharashtra