{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4472 OF 2009 Shahaji s/o Sopan Marwadkar Age-59 years, Occ-Agri & Business R/o Mulewadi, Tq & Dist-Osmanabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Police Osmanabad RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th 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. 33/2009 registered with Dhoki Police Station, Dist-Osmanabad for an offence punishable u/s 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the {2} learned APP for the State. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. It appears that the alleged offence came to be registered on the complaint of Supply Inspector, Osmanabad. It is alleged that the applicant, who is running a fair price shop, had sold 750 kg wheat kept in 15 gunny bags to one trader at Murud and transported the same in a pickup van bearing No.MH25- B-373. 4. My attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the applicant towards the fact that these goods were found kept at the residential premises of the applicant and were not sold at all. At the time of filing of the application, photographs of stock kept at the residential premises of the applicant are produced on record. 5. Learned APP, while opposing the application, has urged that actually the goods transported in the said pickup van were not taken to Murud, however were taken back on the receipt of a phone call by the applicant and at his request driver of the said vehicle had concealed the same and brought the said goods on 3rd December 2009 where photographs of the said stock were taken and produced in the Court. 6. Considering the rival submissions, it has to be noted that there is specific allegation in the complaint that the goods {3} were sold to a trader at Murud by the applicant, however to whom the same were sold is not disclosed. Statement of the driver does not disclose at which place the goods were transported by him at the instructions of the applicant. When the specific allegation in the complaint are that goods were sold, how the same appeared at the residential premises of the applicant is not known. Same thing is in respect of the number of the vehicle, as it is alleged that the goods were transported in a pickup van while record of the RTO discloses otherwise. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, application is allowed. Interim protection granted to the applicant on 19.12.2009 is hereby confirmed. This protection is given for 12 weeks, within mean time the applicant may apply for regular bail. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4472-09