Mithun S/O. Mahadeo Shaha vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Kondali, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur

The present applicant is arrested on 18.02.2025 in connection with Crime No.69/2025 registered with Police Station Kondali, Nagpur, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 123, 318(4), 338, 340(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Under Sections 65(a), 65(b), 65(c), 65(d), 65(e), 65(f), 67-1A, 67C, 72, 83, 86, 90 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act on an allegation that when the Local Crime Branch police officials were on patrolling duty, they received a secret information that some persons are manufacturing the liquor unauthorizedly and illegally. Immediately, they have conducted a raid and the present applicant was found in possession of country liquor. Accordingly, the said country liquor was seized by the investigating agency and the present applicant

¶13

(2) 918.ba.408.2025

¶14

was arrested. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime.

¶15

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who submitted that the applicant is doing a labour work. The spot of incident i.e. the agriculture field and the house therein is obtained by one Bechan Chandrabali Sinha on rent i.e. Survey No.24/1 admeasuring 4 acres and the applicant is working there. As far as the manufacturing of country liquor is concerned, he is not at all concerned with them. Now the entire stock is already recovered. Nothing is to be recovered, and therefore further incarceration of the present applicant is not required, in view of that he be released on bail.

¶16

Learned APP strongly opposed for the same on the ground that other co-accused is absconding. Though the present applicant is stating that he is labour, but the recitals of the FIR shows that he was the person, who was found in possession of the said country liquor, bottles and stock, and therefore, his custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of the investigation as the investigation is not yet completed.

¶17

On hearing both sides and on perusal of the recitals of the FIR and investigation papers which reveals that the applicant was found when the stock was seized by the police during the raid. Now the

¶18

(3) 918.ba.408.2025

¶19

entire stock is already seized. Merely because the other co-accused is absconding, the applicant cannot be kept behind bar, in view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(i) The application is allowed.

¶22

(ii) The applicant Mithun s/o Mahadeo Shaha shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.69/2025 registered with Police Station Kondali, Nagpur, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 123, 318(4), 338, 340(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 65(a), 65(b), 65(c), 65(d), 65(e), 65(f), 67-1A, 67C, 72, 83, 86, 90 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required for the investigation purpose on receiving the notice in advance of seven days.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge himself in similar type of activities.

¶25

(v) Registration of a single offence would lead to the cancellation of bail.

¶26

The application is disposed of.

¶27

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶28

Sarkate

¶29

Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/05/2025 16:04:51

Mithun S/O. Mahadeo Shaha v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Kondali, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithun S/O. Mahadeo Shaha v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Kondali, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sujit S/O Ashokrao Gawande ( in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr Pso, Hinganghat, Wardha and Anr.

Champat Ganu Thamke and Other Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. Mukutban, Tq Zari Jamni, Dist. Yavatmal and Anr.

Imtiyaz Khan Arbaz Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps, Bitargaon, Tq Umarkhed

Vijay S/O Pundlikrao Deulkar vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Kapil Nagar Police Station, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur

Naresh Alias Narendra Kamadi vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Mul, Dist. Chandrapur

Shubham @ Ghubad S/O Dilip Wasnik vs the State of Maharashtra, P.S.O., Jaripatka, Nagpur, Tah. and Dist. Nagpur