1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5441 OF 2009 Vinod Bhawatiprasad Gupta .... Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. Mrs Neha Bhide i/b Mr. Yogendra Pendse & Mr. M. Agvekar for the applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 7TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with the offence punishable under sections 26(d)(e)(f), 41, 42(2)B of the Indian Forest Act read with section 66 of the Bombay Forest Rules. 3. Applicant is a Pathologist and having his laboratory at Bhiwandi. He is also the owner of a vehicle bearing No. MH04-BS-138. He has employed a driver by name Mr. Rothe. On 13/01/2006, applicant came to know that his vehicle was missing and that whereabout of his driver was also not known. He, therefore, lodged a complaint on 14/01/2006. 2 Later on, he came to know that the said vehicle was seized by the Forest Department while some forest produce valued at Rs 5000/- was being transported in the said vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was arrested. According to the applicant, he cooperated with the Forest Officer and gave necessary information about his driver and, after investigation was made, a preliminary report was submitted by the Assistant Conservator of the Forest in which it was categorically mentioned that the applicant was not concerned in any manner with the said forest produce which was being transported in his vehicle and, taking into consideration the assistance given by the applicant, his vehicle was directed to be released by the Assistant Conservator of Forest by his order dated 27/04/2009. It appears that, thereafter, Conservator of Forest by his order dated 21/08/2009 reversed the findings of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, in which it was mentioned that the Assistant Conservator of Forest should not normally release the vehicle in this manner which is seized while illegally carrying on the forest produce. In view of this order, Police Officer is now trying to apprehend the applicant in connection with the offence which was committed by the driver of the applicant in 2006. Applicant, applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. However, his application is rejected. 4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that, in the first place, offence has taken place in 2006. Secondly, it is 3 submitted that the Assistant Surveyor of the Forest after making a preliminary inquiry had come to the conclusion that the applicant was not concerned with the offence which was committed by his driver and finding to that effect was recorded. Thirdly, it is submitted that by an order which was passed under section 61 of the Indian Forest Act, the Assistant Conservator of Forest had released the vehicle on execution of bond. Fourthly, it is submitted that, in any event, punishment for the said offence was one year or six months and that, even otherwise, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. 5. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, invited my attention to the order passed by the Sessions Court wherein the Sessions Court had noticed that driver had retracted his initial statement and had also tried to implicate the present applicant. In the subsequent statement, the driver had stated that the applicant had pressurized him in giving his earlier statement for the purpose of getting the vehicle released and in view of this retracted statement, the Sessions Court felt that this was not the case for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. In my view, there is some substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. In the first place, the alleged offence has taken place in 2006. Thereafter, the Assistant Conservator of Forest by exercising power which is vested in him under 4 section 61 of the Indian Forest Act, had recorded a finding that the applicant was not involved in the commission of offence and had released the vehicle. Even if the said order is being challenged by the Forest Department, the fact remains that in the investigation, at the highest, the vehicle could be seized in view of provisions of section 52. However, in view of the preliminary finding recorded by the Assistant Conservator, applicant cannot be said to be involved in commission of the said offence and, therefore, for that purpose his custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. 7. Applicant, therefore, in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No.12-C/2005/2006 be released on bail in the sum of Rs 5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall, however, report to the concerned Police Station as and when called. 8. Application for anticipatory bail is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)