1609aba301.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 301 OF 2011 (Gurubachansingh Premsingh Makkad Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Mr. V. N. Morande, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N. R. Rode, A.P.P. for the non-applicant. CORAM : U. V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 16TH SEPT., 2011 Heard. 2. The applicant, who apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 6204 of 2011 registered at police station, Bramhapuri for offence punishable under Section 65 (e), 81, 82 and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 3. Police Constable Buckle No. 736 of Bramhapuri police station has lodged the complaint on 2/8/2011 to the effect that based upon secret information, a raid was conducted at the residence of (i) Sau. Surekha Bhimrao Waghmare, and (ii)Arun Balakdas Shende at village Rui during which 11 boxes of country liquor worth Rs.21,120/- were found and seized. The said two persons namely Sau. Surekha and Arun disclosed upon interrogation by police that the liquor was brought to their house by accused No.3 Amit Dadaji Bankar and his servant accused No.4 Mukesh Bhimrao Waghmare. Said two persons were also arrested and upon interrogation, they allegedly disclosed the name of one Madhu Chincholkar as a person who supplied the liquor to them. According to 1609aba301.11.odt 2/3 the respondent, Madhu Chincholkar was arrested and during the interrogation, he disclosed the name of the present applicant as the person who supplied the said liquor to him. 4. The applicant has alleged that he has no concern with the said five persons and that the statement of the alleged co-accused cannot be made basis to involve him in the crime. He has further stated that all the five accused have been released on bail by the learned Magistrate. He states that no custodial interrogation will be required as far as he is concerned. 5. In the reply, the respondent has alleged that the applicant is having antecedents of committing similar crime and his presence in custody is required to know the original source of the illegal liquor and if he is granted bail, he may tamper with the evidence. 6. As has been rightly argued by the learned Advocate Shri Morade on behalf of the applicant, the statement made to the police during interrogation by the co-accused is not admissible against the present applicant. 7. It is noticed that from the clue received by the police on the basis of interrogation of other accused persons, nothing further has been found to implicate the present applicant in the crime. Therefore, prima facie, there is no evidence against the applicant. The chain to reach to the original source appears to be never ending. All the five co-accused have already been released on bail by the learned Magistrate and no purpose would be served by detaining the present applicant in custody. The learned Advocate for the applicant has made a statement across the bar 1609aba301.11.odt 3/3 that the statement of the applicant has been already recorded. 8. In view of the above, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No. 6204/2011 registered at Bramhapuri police station for the offence punishable under Sections 65(e), 81, 82, 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, he shall be released on bail upon execution of personal recognition bond of Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount on the following conditions :- {i} The applicant shall attend Bramhapuri Police Station as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer, to do so and shall cooperate with the investigation. {ii} The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. {iii}The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of this Court. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE wwl