* 1 * ABA.556.2011 12.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 556 OF 2011 Shri. Sachin Purshottam Baldeva ....Applicant V/S. State of Maharashtra .....Respondent Mr. S.K. Shinde i/by. Mr. M.P. Panchakshari, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State-respondent. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 12th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This application is for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant, who apprehends arrest in C.R. No.I-96 of 2011 registered with City Police Station, Baramati, District-Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The first application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant before the Sessions Court was dismissed by the order dated 18th June, 2011. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16th April, 2011 the goods being liquor bottles of United Spirit Ltd, Baramati worth Rs. 41,02,871/- were being transported by truck bearing registration number MH-12/R-9896 from Baramati to Ahmednagar. It was found that the truck carrying the consignment was abandoned. It was empty and lying turtle in a canal. Therefore, complaint was registered with Baramati Police Station under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 * 2 * ABA.556.2011 12.7.2011 Indian Penal Code vide C.R. No. 96 of 2011. During the course of investigation, accused Ram Arjunshet Bulani disclosed the name of the applicant as one of the persons involved in the offence. Ram Bulani, a dealer in readymade garments, disclosed that he was asked by the applicant to provide money on two occasions to one Balu Londhe and the drivers of the truck for hiring a vehicle to go to Solapur to visit the applicant. Bulani had paid a total sum of Rs.8,000/- to them. Balu Londhe had told Ram Bulani that the applicant had struck a deal to collect the entire stock of liquor for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. 3. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant did not purchase any liquor as alleged in the statement and even if the allegation of purchase of the liquor by the applicant is to be accepted at its face value, at the highest it would amount to commission of offence of receiving stolen property. Perusal of the record, prima-facie, does not support the inference desired to be drawn by the applicant. The record does indicate involvement of the applicant into the offence alleged and his role is not limited to purchase of stolen property. In that circumstance, the police cannot be deprived of an opportunity of custodial interrogation. Hence, the application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]