{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 549 OF 2010 Shaikh Umar s/o Shaikh Aziz APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. M.A.Latif, Advocate for applicant Mr. B.J.Sonawane, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 4th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.9/2009 registered with Shivoor police station for an offence punishable u/s 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. 3. Learned APP has urged that investigation in the {2} offence is over and charge sheet has been filed and the applicant is shown as absconding accused. The Court requires to take note of this fact. 4. Perusal of the complaint shows that on certain information residential premises of the applicant was raided and one person was caught at the spot while another fled away. The arrested accused has disclosed the name of the present applicant as the applicant is his father and he was the person who had fled away from the spot. During the said raid, two cans containing 35 liters each of kerosene were found. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that mere seizure of huge quantity of kerosene would not attract the provisions of Essential Commodities Act unless it is proved that the kerosene is stored in violation of control orders. For this submission learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on the ruling reported in 1997 (2) Crimes 491 (Orissa High Court) in the matter of "Pushpa Ranjan Patel V/s State of Orissa". It is to be noted that this ruling was given by the Single Judge of Orissa High Court after the petitioner therein faced trial and during the trial it was brought to the notice that the kerosene seized from his possession was not stored in violation of any control order. That consideration is not at the stage of deciding bail application. Further reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the judgment reported in 1995 Cri.L.J. 654 in the matter of {3} “Kallol Kumar Mukherjee & others V/s State of West Bengal”. Perusal of this judgment, given by Single Judge of Kolkata High Court, shows that the same is on the point of what requires to be considered at the time of taking cognizance of offence under the Essential Commodities Act and the judgment is not on the point that if prima facie there is evidence whether the person found in possession of huge quantity of kerosene is entitled for bail or not. In the premise, the ratio laid down in both the judgments is not applicable to the present case. 6. Perusal of papers of investigation show that the applicant is involved not only in present offence but he is a history sheeter and there are 8 cases to his credit, which are pending. All the cases are in respect of illegal sale of kerosene under the Essential Commodities Act. It is not a coincidence that the applicant is apprehended while engaged in illegal selling of kerosene. The cases to the credit of the applicant belies the submission that the applicant is innocent and the kerosene was not stored for illegal sale. In the premise, it prima facie appears that the applicant is involved in the offence, as alleged. No case is made out to exercise discretion u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code and hence the application stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln549-10