1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No.334/2011 Bhojraj s/o Chainlal Garade Vs. State of Maharashtra =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 10/10/2011. Heard Mr. D.V. Mahajan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P. D. Kothari, learned APP for the respondent. The applicant, who apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 81/2011 registered at Police Station, Rawanwadi, District Gondia, has filed the present application for anticipatory bail. Learned Advocate Mr. D. V. Mahajan for the applicant has contended that the applicant is not involved in the crime and he has been falsely named by Kisan Maskare whose name in turn was disclosed by Ranjit Uke. He further argued that all the co-accused have already been released on bail. It is seen that on secret information received by Gondia Police Station and Rawanwadi Police Station, 2 on 27.7.2011, a raid was conducted at the residential premises of one Umesh Ramdas Uke at village Kathi and spurious liquor, bottles seals as well as labels of different companies of foreign liquor and one packet of powder were seized. Raju Harishchandra Uke, Umesh Ramdas Uke and Ranjit Ramdas Uke were arrested on the spot while preparing the liquor. Mahendra Nandeshwar and Kisanlal Maskare were arrested on the same day in the evening and Rajkumar Krishnaji Lilare was arrested on 2.8.2011. It is the allegation of the respondent that the present applicant and one Deepak Panjwani are absconding and that the investigation has revealed that the present applicant used to bring liquor from Madhya Pradesh for which he used to collect seals and labels from Deepak Panjwani and supply them to co-accused for preparing spurious liquor. The respondent has stated that duplicate labels and other materials used for preparing spurious liquor is to be recovered from the present applicant and information as to from where the said duplicate material was brought is also to be collected from him, for which custodial interrogation would be necessary. A chart has been annexed to the reply, which reveals that the present applicant is history-sheeter and the cases are such in which the offence under Bombay Prohibition Act is involved. All other co-accused were released on bail after they having remained in custody for 10 days and they were in police custody for few days. The case of the present applicant cannot be compared with the 3 other co-accused. In my view the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE Ambulkar.