Shankar v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 s. 65(e)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 328
- Bombay Prohibition Act s. 65(e)
Judgment
Cause title
The State of Maharashtra [Copy for the respondent to be served on P.P. in the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad] .. Applicant
..Respondent
Mr.C.R.Deshpande, Adv.for applicant. Mr.R.P.Phatake,A.P.P. for State. ...
CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 8th AUGUST 2012.
ORAL ORDER :
1] The application is filed for bail. Both sides are heard. Papers of investigation were made available. 2] The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one police officer of Songir police station. On 22/6/12, police had 2 criapln3170-12.odt information that present applicant was manufacturing illicit liquor in the field at village Mohadi Pra Dangari. Police effected the raid. When they reached the spot at 8.45 hrs., they noticed that applicant was coming out of the hut where manufacturing of liquor was going on. After seeing police, he ran away. Police ordered him to stop, but he ran away. Some utensils, articles and chemicals were found in the hut and all these articles were being used for manufacturing of illicit liquor. Police collected samples of the liquor and they are sent to C.A. office. Crime came to be registered for offence punishable u/s 65(e) of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and also for Section 328 of I.P.C. The applicant is behind bars for more than one month.
3] Application was opposed by the State by contending that this is second offence committed by the applicant within a span of 3 months. It was submitted that in the month of March, applicant was found to be involved in similar offence and crime at Cr.No. 14/12 and some other crime was also registered against him for offence punishable u/s 328, etc. of I.P.C. and also u/s 65(e) of Bombay Prohibition Act. 4] It appears that the applicant is a history sheeter. The applicant is aged about 51 years. It was submitted that it is not probable that person aged about 51 years could run away when the raid was effected and there were many police officers who could have easily give chase and caught hold of the applicant. 3 criapln3170-12.odt Said contention cannot be accepted at this stage. The offence is mainly punishable under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act. Though due to use of alcoholic substances, Section 328 of I.P.C. is generally used, it is true that such activities need to be prevented.
Operative part
For giving last chance to the applicant to improve, this Court holds that bail can be granted to him subject to some conditions. 5] The application is allowed. Applicant is to be released on his furnishing PR and SB of Rs.25,000/-. He is not to tamper with prosecution witnesses. He is not commit similar offence. The applicant is to visit concerned police station on every Sunday between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial. If any similar crime is registered against him, bail granted in the present case will be cancelled. If he commits breach of any of the conditions, then also bail will be cancelled. umg/criapln3170-12
[T.V.NALAWADE,J.]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 — s. 65(e); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 328; Bombay Prohibition Act — s. 65(e).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 08 Aug 2012. The bench was T V NALAWADE.
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.