IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.2998 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.2998 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.2998 OF 2008 Shivsharan @ Sayabu Rajappa Gaikwad, Applicant. Vs The State of Maharashtra, Respondent. Mr Ujawal Agandsurve, for the applicant. Mr S.S.Pednekar, APP for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 01/10/2008 DATE : 01/10/2008 DATE : 01/10/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr Agandsurve, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr Pednekar, learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.114 of 2008 of Akkalkot North Police Station, District Solapur. The said case has been registered under sections 328 of IPC and 65(f)(e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act,1949. 3. Mr Agandsurve, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the provisions of section 328 of IPC are not attracted. He submitted that the applicant was not at all involved in the alleged offence of manufacturing country liquor having stupefying substance. He was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time. He submitted that since last more than one month, in view of the interim protection granted by this court, the applicant has been cooperating with the investigating agency and that his custody is not required for interrogation. On the other hand, the learned APP strongly opposed the bail application, contending that the applicant, who is a member of the Gram Panchayat, taking advantage of his position, indulged in the activity of manufacturing country liquor in his own agricultural land. There is no dispute that the land, where the manufacturing of country liquor activity was going on, is the land of the applicant and that he is a member of the Gram Panchayat. Merely because the applicant was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time, it would not be possible, at this stage, to hold that the applicant had no knowledge of such activity and, therefore, the provisions of section 328 of IPC are not attracted. I make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion on the question raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. In my view, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The application is accordingly rejected. It is open to the applicant to surrender and apply for bail and in that event the trial Court shall consider the bail application on merits in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)