1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4885 OF 2009 Iliyas Ibrahim Bagwan & Anr. ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Abhaykumar Apte for the Applicants. Mr.S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 5, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicants and APP for the State. 2 The applicants apprehend arrest in connection with FIR which is registered at Taluka Police Station, Solapur, vide C.R.No.213/2009 for 2 the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3 It is the case of the prosecution that they had received information that blue die kerosene was being sold in the black market and pursuant to the said information, they conducted the raid. However, five persons ran away from the spot and the person apprehended informed the police that the applicants were persons who had escaped from the clutches of the police. It is alleged that blue die kerosene was being illegally transported at Solapur and accordingly, the raid was conducted after necessary entry was made in the station diary. 4 Counsel for the applicants submits that provisions of 420 and 406 are not attracted in the present case and the said provisions have been inserted only for the purpose of arresting the present applicants. It is further submitted that 3 the name of the applicants has been given by the person who was allegedly arrested by the police at the said place where the raid was conducted. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the FIR and pointed out that no role had been attributed to the present applicants and there was no material on record to show that the applicants were in any manner involved in the commission of the said offence. He further submitted that no reference had been made in the FIR that the police had chased the applicants while they were trying to run away from the scene of the offence and he, therefore, submitted that this is the case where the applicants were entitled to be released on bail in the event of their arrest. 5 It is not possible to accept the said submission. Taking into consideration the FIR which clearly discloses that the applicants were persons who had ran away from the scene of the offence and taking into consideration the seriousness of the 4 said offence, in my view, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 6 The application, accordingly, is rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J.)