1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 399 of 2010 [Deepak Mhasane & another Vs. State] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Shyam Dewani, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17th March, 2010. 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. It is seen that in this application, this Court had granted ad interim order and called the respondent to file reply. 3. The reply has been filed. 4. Perused the reply and the case diary. 5. Crime No. 37 / 2010 for offences under Sections 465, 468 and Section 34 of Indian Penal 2 Code, read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been registered against present applicants at Police Station, Balapur. 6. The offence came to be registered on the basis of an anonymous telephone call received in the Police Station and consequent discovery of facts. 7. The applicants have been named as accused for having sold the stock of kerosene unauthorisedly, which was liable to be sold to one of the allottees, namely Mahila Shivan Kala Society [hereinafter referred to as “the Society”]. 8. It is alleged that one Shri Manohar Tayde, who was a representative of the Society, was earlier taking delivery of stock of kerosene. According to the applicants, at this time also, the stock was delivered to Shri Manohar Tayde, who had taken delivery of kerosene for the Society and it was not an unauthorized sale and no offence has been committed by the applicants. 9. According to the prosecution, delivery of stock is not done to the Society, the license holder, or to its representative and that the kerosene has not been sold by consent. 10. In contrast, the applicants have been contending that the stock has been delivered to 3 Shri Manohar Tayde, who was the representative of said Mahila Shivan Kala Society, a licensee. 11. The police have recorded statement of Shri Tayde who also stated before the Investigating Officer that he had already left the job with the Society and the acknowledgments relied upon by the accused persons are not signed by him. 12. Whatever accused persons are contending is in the nature of a defence and it has to be proved in the course of trial. 13. At this stage, prima facie, it is a case of misappropriation of and unauthorised sale of subsidized essential commodity made available by the Govt. and meant to be distributed through Public Distribution System. 14. The grounds raised for bail are in the nature of defence in the trial, which do not constitute grounds for bail. 15. The accused persons praying for anticipatory bail have to demonstrate that prima facie the prosecution case is not worthy, which they have failed to do. Moreover, at this stage, it cannot be seen that the accused have been falsely involved etc. 16. In the present case, prima facie, the prosecution case is based on strong evidence. 4 17. The applicants have no case for grant of anticipatory bail. 18. In this background, ad interim order granted by this Court is vacated and application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Judge |Hedau|