..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2866 OF 2008 Shrishkumar Bajirao Patil ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.Sandeep S. Salunkhe, Adv. for Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 25th August, 2008. DATED : 25th August, 2008. DATED : 25th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.104 of 2008 of Kuruduwadi Police Station. The said case is under Sections 188, 379 of IPC and 21(4) of Mines and Mineral Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the land from where the stones are taken and crushed being declared as sanctuary, orders were given that no crushing of stone would take place there and the stone crushing machines had to be stopped. Due to ..(2).. this, seal came to be put on the stone crushing machine. The case of the prosecution is that the seal on the machine was broken, stones were crushed and thereafter the crushed stones came to be sold. The panchanama prepared by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 2.7.2008 shows that there was 40 brass of crushed stone at the spot. However, subsequent panchanama dated 14.7.2008 shows only 10 brass of crushed stones were found on the spot. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that as per the FIR, 10 brass of crushed stone came to be robbed. He submitted that the panchanama clearly show that 10 brass of crushed stone were found on the spot. He submitted that hence it cannot said that 10 brass of crushed stone came to be robbed. In answer to this submission, the learned APP pointed out that the panchanama prepared by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 2.7.2008 shows that 40 brass of crushed stones were there and later on 10 brass of crushed stones were found on the spot. Thus, the panchanama clearly shows that a huge quantity of crushed stones was missing. 4. Thereafter the learned Advocate for the ..(3).. applicants submitted that when the Circle Officer conducted panchanama dated 14.7.2008 the seals were found on the stone crushing machine, hence, he submitted that this shows that the stone crushing machine were not in use. However, the learned APP pointed out that the panchanama drawn by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 2.7.2008 shows that the machine was in working condition and hence the Sub-Divisional Officer himself sealed the stone crushing machine. The learned APP submitted that in these circumstances on 14.7.2008 seal was found on the machine. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that one other co-accused in another case, however in similar facts, came to be granted anticipatory bail by this Court. That was in the case of Sunil Pitambar Patil v. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application No.2699 of 2008. Looking to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the facts in the case of Sunil Patil and the facts of the present case are not similar. 6. The applicant is the owner of the land as ..(4).. well as stone crushing machine. In my view, the FIR and the other material collected by the prosecution in the present case is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the present applicant. The Apex Court has observed in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Vs. P.V.Prabhakar Rao, P.V.Prabhakar Rao, P.V.Prabhakar Rao, reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 1997 SCC (Cri.) 978 that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)