HIRALAL UTTAM PATILVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Anr. v. Advocate
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Considering the allegations against the applicant, his custodialinterrogation is not required and I pass the following order :-ORDER(i)The application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. The police have seized the contraband articles. The applicanteasily ran away in presence of police from the incident spot. Considering the allegations against the applicant, his custodialinterrogation is not required and I pass the following order :-ORDER(i)The application is allowed. (ii)In the event of…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.58 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 595 OF 2024HIRALAL UTTAM PATILVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Patil Jitendra VijayAPP for Respondent/State : Ms.V.S. Chaudhari ...CORAM :SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.DATE :29th July, 2024. P.C.:
The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.111of 2024 registered with MIDC Police Station, Jalgaon, for the offencespunishable under sections 328, 188, 272, 273 of the Indian PenalCode (For short, “IPC”) and sections 26 and 27 of the Food Safetyand Standard Act, 2006.
It is the prosecution's case that on 23rd February, 2024, ataround 12 noon, the police received secret information and raided onegodown situated in M.I.D.C. area where the applicant was present. During the search of said godown, the police found prohibited articlesalong with Gutkha around Rs.14,01,612/-. It is alleged that when thepolice inquired with the applicant about the said Gutkha, he ran awayfrom the incident spot when the police were loading the seized Gutkhain the vehicle.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant thatthe applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The entire
contraband has been seized by the police. Considering the allegationsagainst the applicant, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is notrequired, hence requested to allow the application.
It is the contention of the learned APP that at the incident spotthe police have received the contraband articles from two placesaround Rs.15,00,000/-. Custodial interrogation of the applicant isrequired to know the source of said prohibited articles, hencerequested to reject the application.
I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the F.I.R. andpolice papers produced on record.
Operative part
The police have seized the contraband articles. The applicanteasily ran away in presence of police from the incident spot. Considering the allegations against the applicant, his custodialinterrogation is not required and I pass the following order :-ORDER(i)The application is allowed. (ii)In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with F.I.R.No.111 of 2024 registered with MIDC Police Station, Jalgaon, for theoffences punishable under sections 328, 188, 272, 273 of the IndianPenal Code and sections 26 and 27 of the Food Safety and StandardAct, 2006, the applicant be released on executing personal bond in thesum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount, on the followingconditions :-
3595.2024ABA.odt(a)the applicant shall attend the concerned police station as andwhen required by the Investigating Officer.[ SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. ] sga
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Considering the allegations against the applicant, his custodialinterrogation is not required and I pass the following order :-ORDER(i)The application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Food Safetyand Standard Act, 2006 — ss. 26, 27.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.