( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3962 OF 2010 Gajanan Ramji Pawar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. G.G. Kadam, advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant. 3. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with crime No. 121/2010, registered at Hadgaon Police Station, for offence of theft. 4. Upon hearing learned advocate for the applicant and on perusal of the FIR as well as copy of the reply filed by the prosecution to the bail application which was filed before the Court of Sessions, it transpires that the Tahsil office had taken action by seizure of 30 brass sand valued Rs. 96,000/-. A panchanama of the seizure was drawn and the stock ( 2 ) of the sand was given in custody of the village police patil. The applicant and his family members were informed by the police patil that they shall not take away the sand which was seized by the Tahsil office. It is alleged that on 23rd and 24th of July, 2010, the applicant got removed and transported the stock of the sand n a tractor and trolley bearing registration No. MH-22/9747. The police patil informed such incident to the Tahsil office at Hadgaon. He was directed by the Tahsildar to lodge the report and, therefore, he lodged the FIR. 5. Contention of learned advocate for the applicant is that the applicant had purchased sand for construction of his own house property. He has placed on record certain xerox copies of the transportation receipt and permission. The question is whether the applicant committed the alleged theft and is likely to be arrested on basis of prima facie material appearing against him, or that his arrest is without any reason. 6. The applicant could have made representation to the Tahsildar regarding the seizure of the sand. He could have objected the seizure of the stock of the sand. Once it is found that the stock of the sand was seized under a panchanama and was given in temporary custody of police patil, it follows ( 3 ) that the police patil was the temporary custodian of the stock of the sand. In such a case, the question of ownership does not play much importance. It prima facie appears that the applicant removed the sand from custody of the police patil, who was the lawful custodian thereof, with dishonest intention notwithstanding clear intimation given to him that he shall not remove the stock of sand which was duly seized. Under the circumstances, there is a prima facie evidence appearing against the applicant and hence, his arrest cannot be regarded as without any reason nor it can be said that he is unnecessarily likely to be humiliated due to the arrest. The application is, therefore, dismissed. 7. The observations made in this order may not be considered in any other proceedings. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3962-10 ( 4 )