1 CA5135/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5135 OF 2011 Mangesh Popat Dabhade Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Shri H.U. Dhage, Advocate for the applicant Shri B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8th December, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocates of both sides. 2. The applicant apprehends arrest in CR No. I – 176 of 2011 of Parner Police Station, District Ahmednagar. 3. The truck owned by the applicant bearing No. MH-14-CP-3892 was found to be loaded on 8th October, 2011 with sand. The driver of the said truck was in 2 CA5135/2011 the employment of the applicant. The learned Advocate for the applicant informed the Court that the applicant has not filed any complaint with the police that in the morning of 8th October, 2011, his truck was taken away by his driver without his permission. This would go to show that the truck was employed for transporting of the sand with the permission of the present applicant. In the remand-report, it is claimed by the police that one Mandabai has loaded the said truck with sand. 4. The record shows that the truck driver could not show proper documents to show that the said sand was purchased or obtained after following the provisions of law. 5. The police will have to investigate as to where from the sand was picked up / exploited, who is Mandabai and who was dealing with sand. All these ratifications will have to be seen. The applicant is apprehending arrest as per Section 3 and 15 of the 3 CA5135/2011 Environment Protection Act as well as under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The police will have to be given free hand to carry out investigation. Therefore, in my view, this is not a fit case where the Court should grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the application for anticipatory bail stands rejected. 6. After the aforesaid order is passed, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant sought protection of the applicant. Surely, once the application is rejected on merits, there is no question for granting protection, as prayed. Hence, the request is rejected. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/8/12/11