{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 625 OF 2010 Digambar s/o Bhivdas Barvekar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Ms. U.P.Kale Wayal, Advocate for applicant Mr. N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2nd March 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.6002/2010 registered with Jafrabad police station for an offence punishable u/s 65 (b), (e), (f), 83, 68 (a) and (b) of Bombay Prohibition Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. It appears that the said offence is registered on the {2} complaint of one Devidas Rathod, police head constable. It is alleged that on the basis of certain information field of Gulabrao was raided on 17.01.2010. It is further alleged that at that time one person was seen running away. During the raid, some barrels containing liquid material were recovered. Out of the said barrels, 4 barrel contained 800 liters country made liquor and 3 contained 500 liters of chemicals used for preparing country liquor. 4. According to learned counsel for the applicant the said field is owned by one Gulabrao and the applicant is in no way concerned with the same and with the material allegedly recovered during the raid. According to learned counsel for applicant, the applicant is an agriculturist and resident of a village which is at a distance of 19 km from the spot of raid. Per contra, learned APP submits that statements of two independent witnesses recorded during the investigation show that on the day of the raid one person was ran away from the spot and the same is the present applicant. Statement of accomplice indicates that the premises was acquired by the applicant to start poultry business. Considering the material collected during the investigation it prima facie appears that this is not a case of false implication. As per the statement of accomplice, which is normally not admissible, however in prohibition case to find out whether the owner of the property is in possession of the contra bands or somebody else, it is admissible. In the premise, considering the material collected during the investigation, it does not appear that the applicant is {3} implicated falsely. In the result, the application, which is sans merits stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln625-10