906ABA1164-20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1164 OF 2020

1.

Vilas Chandrakant Pawar,

Age 29 years, Occu: Agri.

...

Applicants

2.

Kailas Pyarachand Pawar

Age 29 years, Occu: Agri.

3.

Pratap Tarachand Pawar,

Age 42 years, Occu: Agri.

4.

Ashok Hiraman Pawar,

Age 46 years, Occu: Agri.

All R/o Shrigonda Factory,

Tq. Shrigonda Dist. Ahmednagar.

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,

Through Police Station Officer,

Shrigonda Police Station,

Tq. Shrigonda Dist. Ahmednagar

...

Respondent

Mr. Y. V. Kakade h/for Mr. N. V. Gaware, Advocate for the applicant,

Mr. S. B. Narwade, A.P.P. for the State.

CORAM

: PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE

: 17^th November, 2021

ORDER:

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail in Crime No.

237/2020 registered with Shrigonda Police Station, District Ahmednagar

for the offences punishable under sections 328 r/w 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 65(b), 65(c), 65(f) of the Bombay Prohibition

Act, 1949.

Page 1 of 4

906ABA1164-20

2.

Case of the prosecution is that information was received that

the accused were manufacturing illicit liquor nearby vicinity of their

residence. Pursuant to that Police proceeded to the spot. The persons

present at the scene of offence managed to flee from the place. Certain

articles and chemical found at the spot were seized. C.A. report

indicates that the chemical found there can be used for distillation of

intoxicating liquor.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the

applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. Although the

information was received that the accused were indulging in

manufacturing illicit liquor, it has not been established that the

applicants were present as the scene of offence. FIR mentions that

the persons present at the place of incident managed to flee taking

advantage of darkness. It is not established that the place where the

illicit liquor was manufactured and the articles found there belonging to

the applicants. It is submitted that directions to report the Investigating

Officer vide order dated 18.12.2021 were complied. The applicants had

attended the Investigating Officer and hence custody is not required for

any purpose.

4.

Learned APP submitted that CA report supports the prosecution

case that the chemical recovered from the place of incident can be used

for distillation of intoxicating liquor. Although it is not stated in the FIR,

Page 2 of 4

906ABA1164-20

the applicants were the persons who ran away from the place of

incident, place was raided on information that accused were involved in

manufacturing illicit liquor.

5. The applicants were indulged in manufacturing illicit liquor.

6.

It is pertinent to note that the persons present at the place of

incident had allegedly ran away. They were not identified as applicants.

It is also relevant to note that even identification would not serve the

purpose as the witness did not give description of persons since it is the

case of prosecution that taking advantage of darkness, they ran away

from the place. There is no evidence to establish that the place of

incident and articles seized belong to the applicants. It is not disputed

that illicit liquor was being manufactured. It is also relevant to note that

while granting interim protection on 18.12.2020, this court had observed

that taking into consideration the contents of the FIR, physical custody

of the applicants may not be required.

7.

In view of the aforesaid factual aspects, interim protection

granted to the applicant can be confirmed. Hence, I pass the following