1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2090 of 2009 Gajinderpal Singh v. The State of Maharashtra and anr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr P.P. Kotwal, Adv for applicant Ms S. Wandile, APP for respondents Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 22nd July 2009 1. Heard Mr P.P. Kotwal, learned counsel for applicant and Ms Sharda Wandile, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State. By this application, applicant prays for anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 101/2009 registered with Inspector, State Excise, Flying Squad, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 65 (a) (e), 80, 81 and 108 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 10th June 2009. 2. Prosecution case is that stock of imported scotch liquor while being transported in Honda City Car No. MH-31 CP 911 worth Rs. 6,90,715/- was seized from one Alok Rameshchandra Chourasiya in Bajaj Nagar area of Nagpur and Crime No. 101/09 came to be registered against him. Said Alok was arrested and during interrogation he disclosed the name of one Vijay Shinde and as such Vijay Shinde came to be arrested and 2 imported scotch liquor worth Rs. 38,000/- was seized from him being transported through Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No. MH 31 WS 3305. Said Vijay Shinde revealed the name of present applicant and that he was acting on the instructions of applicant as his servant. Respondent, on raiding the residential flat of applicant in the wee hours of 7.5.2009, seized huge stock of imported scotch whisky of various brands worth Rs. 5,01,970/-. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that custody of the applicant is not at all necessary. He further contends that statements of co- accused cannot be used against applicant who is a businessman operating in Mumbai as well as in Nagpur. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied on judgment of this Court in Jagannath v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1981 Cri.L.J. 1808 wherein it is held that anticipatory bail should not be refused merely because prosecution claims that they want the accused in police custody for the purpose of investigation. The genuineness of the alleged need for police custody has to be examined and it must be balanced against the duty of Courts to uphold the dignity of every man and to vigilantly guard his right to liberty, without jeopardzing the State objective of maintenance of law and order. Learned counsel for the applicant further points that name of applicant from relevant column in FIR is missing as an accused. 4. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the bail application. She contends that applicant is found in dealing with illegal procurement and sale of imported scotch liquor of various brands. She submits that custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much necessary to know the source of his illegal procurement and the parties to whom he is unlawfully selling the foreign liquor in evasion of payment of excise duty to the State Government. She has also expressed possibility of applicant selling 3 fake and duplicate liquor in the name of foreign brands of scotch liquor, posing health hazards to the innocent public. As regards missing of applicant’s name from the relevant column of FIR, learned APP submits that it has happened through inadvertence and the omission was by mistake. She submits that the mistake will be corrected and the corrected copy of FIR will be submitted to the Court concerned. 5. Considering the material collected during the course of investigation, it appears that investigation is still at its inception. Although order of interim anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the applicant, it cannot enure permanently to the benefit of applicant so as to avoid investigation into serious accusations and offences involving large scale repercussions. Bail to the applicant, therefore, will have to be granted in this case for a limited period, requiring the applicant to surrender before the Trial Court and seek for regular bail. 6. In the result, benefit of interim anticipatory bail given by this Court vide order dated 10th June 2009 is extended upto 5th August 2009 on the same terms and conditions as are stipulated therein. In addition, applicant is directed to inform his permanent residential address to the Investigating Officer and communicate his telephone and cellular phone number to him. As and when there occurs any change in either residential or telephone/cell phone number, applicant shall inform such change to the Investigating Officer. Applicant is directed to surrender formally before the Trial Court on the said date and may apply for bail. Regular court may allow the applicant to remain on interim bail till the time his bail application is disposed of on merits. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Judge. hsj