{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4298 OF 2009 Naim Ahmed Ansari APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for applicant MR.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 19th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.58/2008 registered with Savada police station, Dist-Jalgaon for an offence punishable u/s 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 136 of the Indian Electricity Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. It is an admitted fact that search of the premises of the applicant was taken on the statement of accomplice, which has resulted into recovery of 50 kg of copper coils. It is alleged that the {2} said copper coils, recovered from the premises of the applicant, are tested by the expert engineers of the MSEB and it transpired that the same are the wires used in transformers. It is contended on behalf of the applicant the said copper coils are stored by him, as he does a work of motor rewinding of power looms. However, the fact remains that the wires which are recovered from the premises of the applicant are not the wires used for rewinding electric motors but the same are the wires used in electric transformers. It is contended by learned APP that a statement of a trader from Indore is recorded, who has asserted that the applicant supplies copper wires to him. Learned APP has further asserted that more than 100 transformers are found damaged and the copper coil from it is found missing. In the premise, considering the submissions of learned APP coupled with the statement of a trader from Indore and the fact that copper coil is stolen from more than 100 transformers, it prima facie appears that the applicant is involved in the said offence. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. No case is made out to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4298-09