Mohammad Islauddin @ Mobin S/O Mohammad Gausuddin Vs the State of Maharashtra

(SCR) post at Purna, Railway Station, Purna, District Parbhani, for the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

¶19

3] In brief, the prosecution case is that an organized crime is carried out by Railway employees (Accused no.2, 5, 7 and 8) with the help of transporter (accused no.3 ) and other accomplices (accused no.1, 4 and 6). In this case, the decanting staff of the Railway Consumer Depot, Purna, namely, the applicant, the Chief Office Superintendent (Accused no.5), office Superintendent (Accused no.2 and 7 ) and Chief Loco Inspector / RCD (accused no.8) were involved with outsiders (accused no.1, 3, 4 and 6) in stealing a large quantity of HSD Oil from the Railway Consumer Depot in Purna over an extended period. As a result, the accused Railway employees not only stole the HSD oil from RCD Purna but also falsified the records and registers at the RCD without providing any information.

¶20

4] The diesel Tanker NO.MH-21-BH-3944 was intercepted by the Local Crime Branch, Parbhani, based on source information on 29.01.2024 with stolen Railway property, specifically 5989 liters of HSD oil and subsequently handed over to the Inspector / RPF / Purna. On sample being checked, seized property approximately 6000 liters of HSD Oil from a compartment of diesel tanker and the same is identified and is used as per specification of

¶21

3

¶22

291.24ABA

¶23

the railway. The applicant was the Chief Office Superintendent of the Purna Depot at the relevant time.

¶24

5] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on leave for the period from 29.01.2024 to 01.02.2024 and for every transporting of tanker, there is digital locking system and OTP required for closing and opening of the vehicle for filing and unloading the diesel. It is further submitted that the co-accused no.2 namely Madhav was incharge of the said section. He was getting OTP on his mobile and the applicant has no role in the said process. It is further submitted that there is no need of physical custody of the applicant. The offence is punishable with maximum imprisonment less than 7 years. As per remand papers, on 30.01.2024, the quantity of diesel was mentioned as 5500 liters. Later on, in remand paper dated 03.02.2024, the said quantity is mentioned as 5989 liters and there is contradiction in the quantity of diesel.

¶25

6] Per contra, the learned APP submits that this is an organized crime in which 10-15 tankers are suspected to be involved in theft of Railway Diesel with the connivance of Railway employees and outsiders duly bye-passing the security arrangements provided by Railway. The applicant is absconding accused involved in serious organized crime of railway diesel theft. It is further submitted that the applicant had presented leave application on 29.01.2024

¶26

4

¶27

291.24ABA

¶28

and had applied for leave from 29.01.2024 to 01.02.2024. It is further submitted that thereafter the applicant is absconding. It is further submitted that witness statement has also implicated the applicant.

¶29

7] The learned APP submits that investigation against the applicant is pending and not yet concluded. It is necessary to unearth the entire crime and its proceeds. Armed with an anticipatory bail order, it is not possible to recover the benefited amount nor all the facts and persons involved in the organised crime would be known.

¶30

8] Considering rival submissions of the parties, prima facie the applicant is involved in the offence alleged and all the accused are responsible for the theft. The police has recorded the statement of co-accused i.e. the driver of the tanker that the applicant has helped in stealing the diesel. It is to be noted that theft of oil has been going on for a long time in depot and there is manipulation of record which is not possible without connivance of the applicant. As such, there is not a case to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary in the matter. Hence, the present application is dismissed.

¶31

9] It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall not be influenced

¶32

5

¶33

291.24ABA

¶34

by the observations made in this order while deciding regular bail application or at the stage of trial.

¶35

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

¶36

DDC

Mohammad Islauddin @ Mobin S/O Mohammad Gausuddin v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Islauddin @ Mobin S/O Mohammad Gausuddin v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharasing @ Darsingh Trimbak Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raisa Kalim Shaikh and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lakhan Namdeo Dhage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ganesh Arjun Shendge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Yogesh Shankar Gadapwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant Chandrakant Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra