Aba 433/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.433/2011 Nagendrakumar Vijaysing APPLICANT Vs. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Ms.Usha Purohit for applicant Mr.J.P.Kharge,APP for State Mr.D.N.Salvi,Special Counsel for Customs CORAM- MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE - 13th MAY, 2011. P.C. . This application is preferred for grant of anticipatory bail against the order of rejection of the application by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad on 29/4/2011. The incident of seizure of truck bearing registration no.MHO-4 AL 6580 had taken place on 23/2/2011 at Nava Sheva Port Trust by the Customs department. The Customs department has prepared a file bearing no.SG/Misc.-408/10-11 SIIB (X) JNCH in respect of the smuggled goods in the said truck. According to the Customs department the applicant is the owner of the said truck and,therefore, they want to interrogate him and,therefore, they issued summons bearing no.DRW/84/2010-11,dated 8/4/2011. Till then the Customs department has not included his name as an accused in the said offence. Thus, the Aba 433/2011 2 application is filed on apprehension. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has received the first summons dated 8/2/2011 which is at Exh.1 at page 10 and thereafter from time to time he received such summons, by which the department asked him to attend the Customs Office for interrogation. However, the applicant is not aware of the nature of the offence which he has alleged committed. The learned counsel points out that in the summons the registration number is written at the bottom of the document is not owned by the applicant. Moreover, if the incident had taken place on 23/2/2011 how the department issued summons dated 8/2/2011. It is argued that the learned Sessions Judge while passing the order has committed error especially in holding that the applicant has not disputed the seizure of the sandal wood valued Rs.1,04,94,000/- in the impugned truck. The learned counsel has submitted that as the applicant was not aware of the details of the alleged offence so there was no question of admitting the contents about the alleged charge. 3 Learned counsel for the Customs submits that the month which is appearing on the summons as February is a typographical error which should have been 8th April,2011 and on enquiry the department has found that the number of the impugned truck was changed. However, they could Aba 433/2011 3 trace the details on the basis of Chasis number through the R.T.O.. Further it is submitted that agreement of sale is bogus. There is necessity to interrogate the applicant and there is prima facie case against the applicant. 4 Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Customs and after going through the document,especially the agreement of sale which was executed by the applicant in favour of one Harishchandra Yadav about the said truck dated 12/1/2011 and also the nature of the offence, it is not a case in which anticipatory bail can be granted. The application is rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)