1 Cri.A.2538.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2538 OF 2011 . Machindra S/o Ginyandev Sanap, R/o Wadzari, Tqluka Patoda, District Beed. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS . The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri.N.H.Borade A.P.P. for Respondent. ... CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 8TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for anticipatory bail, in Crime No. 59 of 2011, registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. APP has made available the report of Investigation Officer to show that tanker bearing No MH-23-4555 belongs to present applicant and police could not arrest him. Both sides are heard. 2 Cri.A.2538.11 2. There are allegations made by Police Officer in the report that on the basis of information received by Police, they went to the field of Popat Londhe and there they noticed two tankers containing kerosene and some persons were taking out kerosene from two tankers by putting pipe in the tankers. Tanker bearing No. MH-23/4555 belongs to present applicant and his driver Pandit Bargaje was there. It was kerosene meant for supply through fair price shop to public and these persons were taking out it at different places and they were virtually stealing the same. Kerosene is treated as essential commodity. 3. Advocate for the applicant submitted that tanker was given on hire basis to M/s V.S.Dube Agency of Parli Vaijnath for transportation of kerosene. He also submitted that driver has played such mischief. Though, such possibility may be there, there is every possibility of involvement of present applicant in the present act. Incident of taking controled kerosene to other places are increasing day by day. The Government is selling the kerosene at subsidized rate and such persons are cheating the Government and public. Such incidents cannot be taken lightly. In such cases custodial investigation is necessary and only after custodial interrogation, police can find out as to whether the persons were involved in other similar incidents in past and there are more behind this incident. Therefore, this Court holds 3 Cri.A.2538.11 that it is not fit case for granting anticipatory bail. So, application stands rejected. Interim relief stands vacated. Sd/- [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.] MTK