1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No.220/2011 ( Manish S/o Madhavrao Chipade ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Washim, Distt. Washim ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M.L. Vairagade, Adv. for applicant. Mr. S.M. Bhagde, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 28.6.2011. 1. This is an application for releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail against whom the offences bearing Crime No.204/2011, under sections 420, 379, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 65(e), 83 and 108 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, are registered by the police station Washim. 2. On the report lodged by Mr. Govind Kalane who is the Inspector of Excise and Prohibition, Washim, the aforesaid offences came to be registered. 3. On 30/5/2011 in the midnight Mr. Kalane received information that some fake beer boxes are being unloaded in the Nishant Beer Bar by the applicant. He visited the spot and found the truck form which beer boxes were being unloaded. The applicant who was present there after some time left the place. Therefore, the godown and the beer bar in which 400 beer 2 boxes were unloaded were sealed. The truck was detained and was carried to police station. In the truck also beer boxes which were supposed to be unloaded at different destination were found. 4. On the next morning Mr. Kalhane visited the premises of the applicant. He found that the seal was intact but entry was made from the back side opening and all the 400 boxes were found to be removed. The tyre marks were found suggesting they were loaded in a truck and disposed of. Therefore, the report was lodged and on that basis the offences, as stated above, came to be registered. 5. Learned A.P.P. submitted the reply stating that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is innocent, recently got married and all the beer boxes were genuine. 6. Even if his contention is accepted the fact remains that the applicant is not required in connection with the offences of avoiding excise duty. However, he is required in connection with the offences of removing the beer boxes although it were sealed by the public servant. It is a clear cut case of interfering with the legal process. In this view of the matter the discretion of issuing directions under sections 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be exercised in favour of the applicant. 7. Application is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.