( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3700 OF 2010 1. Abhijeet Arjunrao Kotkar 2. Arjunrao Baburao Kotkar Both r/o Kedgaon, Taluka and Dist. Ahmednagar. APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. N.V. Gaware, advocate for the applicants. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondents/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with crime No. II-100/2010, registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar for offence punishable under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. ( 2 ) 3. Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned A.P.P. Perused the investigation papers which were made available during the course of hearing. 4. It appears from the recitals of the FIR that on 29th August, 2010, the police party members were proceeding from Nagar-Dhule road. In the early morning, the police staff members came across one vehicle which was coming from Kotkar Mala. The vehicle was intercepted due to suspicion. It was found that the pick-up van was being driven by one Bhausaheb Shridhar Anarase and there were five (5) barrels loaded in the van. The five barrels consisted of approximately 1000 blue coloured kerosene which was meant for distribution through P.D.S. (Public Distribution System). 5. It is argued by the learned advocate for the applicants that the applicants are likely to be harassed as a result of arrest without there being any substratum to implicate them in the alleged seizure and search of the pick- up van. Perusal of the investigation papers prima facie show that the statement of the owner of the pick-up van was recorded during course of investigation. He (PW Ashok Kale) narrated to the police that the pick-up van was hired by the ( 3 ) applicant No.2. His version before the police shows that the applicant No. 2 instructed to send the van for transportation of goods at 4 a.m. Therefore, the van was made available for transportation and the pick-up van was directed to be stopped in front of the hotel. He and the driver of the van further narrated that the applicant No. 1 alongwith other 2/3 persons had loaded the five (5) barrels containing the kerosene in that pick-up van. The investigation revealed that the applicant No. 1 is licence holder for distribution of the kerosene under the P.D.S. 6. Considering the nature of investigation, it appears that the vehicle was found coming from the place called `kotkar mala' where the applicants do reside. Though the applicant No. 2 might have hired the vehicle, yet, the stock of the kerosene was probably loaded by the applicant No. 1 because he is the licence holder for distribution of the blue coloured kerosene. The applicant No. 1 appears to be involved in the alleged transportation of the blue coloured kerosene which was being clandestinely sent to a hotel. The applicant No. 2 is neither the licence holder of fair price shop or as a distributor of kerosene, nor is directly concerned because he only facilitated hiring of the vehicle for use of the ( 4 ) applicant No. 1. The statement of the owner of the pick-up van does not show that nature of the goods to be transported had been described by the applicant No. 2. Under the circumstances, the arrest of the applicant No. 2 may not be necessary for the purpose of effective investigation. However, there is prima facie evidence against the applicant No. 1 and as such, his application deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the application is partly allowed. The applicant No. 2 (Arjunrao), in the event of his arrest, be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with one solvent surety bond in the like sum, before the Arresting Officer. He shall attend the concerned Police Station on each Sunday between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. for three (3) consecutive Sundays henceforth. The application of applicant No.1 (Abhijeet) stands dismissed. 8. The observations made hereinabove be considered as restricted to the extent of the present application. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3700-2010 ( 5 )