1 crap3414.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3414 OF 2011 Balasaheb s/o Haribhau Gaikwad, age 32 years, occ. Business, Hotel Akash, r/o Chanda, Tal. Newasa, District Ahmednagar ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Sonai, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar ...Respondent ..... Shri Yuvraj V. Kakade, advocate for applicant Shri B.J.Sonwane, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 16th August, 2011 2 crap3414.11 PER COURT : 1 Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking anticipatory bail, in connection with C.R. No. I-73 of 2011, registered at Sonai police station, District Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 40 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and under Section 65 of the Maharashtra Forest Act. 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Kalyan Trimbak Gade on 16.6.2011, alleging that on that day in between 1630 to 1800 hours, the applicant and co-accused, cut the sandalwood from the forest illegally, removed the inner part of sandalwood tree for the purpose of selling it for their own benefit and kept it in their house and were found in possession of inner part of sandalwood stored in their house in the vicinity of Loharwadi, Chanda, Taluka Newasa, in furtherance of their common intention. 3 crap3414.11 4 On the afore said background, learned counsel for the applicant canvassed that the extract, dated 30.6.2011, produced at Exh.’D’ collectively discloses that the applicant is resident of Chanda, Taluka Newasa and he carries on the business of hotel in the land bearing Gat No.670, owned by his father, namely Haribhau. Learned counsel for the applicant also canvassed that extract, dated 2.8.2011, produced at Exh.’D’ collectively discloses that the applicant herein resides in the land Gat No. 760/3 owned by his father, namely Haribhau and the extract, dated 2.8.2011 Exh.’E’ collectively discloses that the applicant’s father, namely Haribhau resides in the land Gat No. 765. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the tax payment receipt of houses No. 1426 and 1429 in the name of the applicant’s father, namely Haribhau, dated 10.2.2011 is also produced by the applicant. Moreover, the applicant has produced the copy of ration card Exh.’F’ pertaining to applicant’s father, namely Haribhau. 5 Accordingly, it is the contention of the applicant that the applicant is not the owner of the house from where the sandalwood and other articles were allegedly recovered. 4 crap3414.11 6 Shri B.J.Sonwane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the applicant was the possessor of the house when the sandalwood and other articles were recovered therefrom and the applicant has not produced any extract to prove and establish that the applicant was not owner of the said house at the relevant time. Shri B.J.Sonwane, learned A.P.P. also pointed out that the applicant is habitual offender in the field of theft of sandalwood and earlier about 8 offences have been registered against him at Sonai police station, as enlisted herein below :- Sr. Police C.R. No. Section/Theft of No. Station ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Sonai I-88/2002 379 Sandalwood 2 Sonai I-90/2002 379 Sandalwood 3 Sonai I-93/2002 379 Sandalwood 4 Sonai I-94/2002 379 Sandalwood 5 Sonai I-95/2002 379 Sandalwood 6 Sonai I-98/2002 379 Sandalwood 7 Sonai I-08/2003 379 Sandalwood 8 Sonai I-73/2011 279, Under Forest 34,40 Act & 42 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 crap3414.11 7 Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor asserted that there is no false implication of the applicant in the crime and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for further progress in the investigation, and the investigation is still under progress, and therefore, urged that present application be dismissed. 8 I have perused the investigation papers, which were made available for inspection purpose and also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the contents of the first information report, it appears that there are direct allegations against the applicant. Pertinently, the applicant has not produced the extract of the house where the raid was committed and from where sandalwood and other articles were recovered, to prove and establish that the said house did not belong to the applicant/accused at the relevant time. 9 Moreover, it is material to note that as many as eight offences have been registered against the applicant in respect 6 crap3414.11 of theft of sandalwood with Sonai police station, which indicates that the applicant is habitual offender in the said field. Besides, the investigation is under progress. Considering the material placed on record, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for further progress in the investigation in constructive manner. Moreover, considering the allegations and recovery of the sandalwood from the house allegedly possessed by the applicant at the relevant time, it appears that there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant in the crime. In the circumstances, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be rejected. 10 In the result, present application stands dismissed. 11 The above observations are prima facie observations and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/crap3414.11