Ravindra Sudam Adhikari vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 11772 Bom

                                                                                    1-Aba-1859-2019.doc




                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1859 OF 2019

                        Ravindra Sudam Adhikari                                ... Applicant

                                    Versus

                        The State of Maharashtra                               ... Respondent

                                                        .....
                        Mr. S. V. Marwadi i/by Mr. N. M. Nadar, Advocate for the Applicant.
                        Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
                        Mr. P. S. Raut (A.S.I.) Satpati Sagari Police Station, Dist. Palghar
                        Present.
                                                        .....

                                                       CORAM       :     PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

                                                       DATE        :     25th AUGUST, 2021.

                        PER COURT:

1. The applicant is apprehending arrest in C.R. No. 48 of

2019 registered with Satpati Police Station, Dist. Palghar for

offences under Sections 379, 224, 413 r/w Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code (for short "IPC") and Section 48(7) of Maharashtra

Land Revenue Code, 1966.

2. The First Information Report (for short 'FIR') was

registered on 26th July, 2019. It is alleged that information was

received by the Satpati Sagari Police Station that some persons are Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI indulging in illegal transport of sand. On receipt of the information, LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:

JAMADAR    2021.08.26
           17:43:34
           +0530


                        Sajakali Jamadar                      1 of 7
                                                             1-Aba-1859-2019.doc

Police party proceeded for action. On 26th July, 2019 it was noticed

that truck was driven on Bhoisar Road and it was suspected to be

carrying sand. The truck and driver were intercepted. Inquiry was

made with the driver. He did not give satisfactory explanation. On

scrutiny it was found that the truck was carrying sand. The truck

was owned by the applicant. The driver of the vehicle confessed

that the sand was being transported under instructions of the

applicant.

3. The applicant had preferred an application for

anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions. The said application

was rejected vide order dated 20th August, 2019.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the

entire case of the prosecution is false. The custodial interrogation

of the applicant is not necessary. The truck was intercepted on

suspicion. The only fault of the driver is not taking the receipt of

royalty paid to the local excavator. The applicant is not involved in

committing theft of sand. The truck had passed through the royalty

gate under the impression that the royalty receipt will be issued.

The truck and the sand was seized. Nothing is to be recovered from

the applicant. The applicant has annexed the copies of the receipts

of royalty paid in the past. The Collector of Palghar had granted

Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 7 1-Aba-1859-2019.doc

permission for excavation and transportation of sand from 1 st May,

2019. The applicant was granted interim protection by this Court

and he has co-operated with the investigation. The learned Sessions

Judge has erroneously rejected the application for anticipatory bail

and one of the ground is that the applicant is habitual offender. In

the past, one case was registered against the applicant which has

resulted in acquittal. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of

acquittal which has been annexed to this application. The driver of

the vehicle was arrested and charge-sheet has been filed against

him.

5. The Police Sub Inspector attached to Satpati Police

Station has filed an affidavit opposing grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned APP submitted that the applicant is involved in the

offence. The truck carrying sand belongs the applicant. The

co-accused, who was apprehended on the spot had confessed that

the sand was being transported under the instructions of the

applicant. The applicant had not produced the royalty receipts.

6. In the affidavit filed by the investigating officer it is

stated that the applicant had relied upon the royalty receipts which

has been annexed to this application. He was directed to produce

the receipts and the same was produced by him and it has been

Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 7 1-Aba-1859-2019.doc

seized vide panchanama dated 29th August, 2019. The said receipts

shows that the applicant was granted royalty permission for a

period of 7th May, 2019, 24th June, 2019 and 12 th August, 2019.

However, he had not produced any receipt/royalty permission for

the month of July - 2020. The office of the Deputy Collector,

Palghar has confirmed that the said office had not issued any

permit or license of the applicant in July - 2019 and there was no

such application by the applicant. The applicant is habitual

offender and similar offence vide C.R. No. 84 of 2013 was

registered at Manor Police Station, Dist. Palghar under Section 379

r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land

Revenue Code, 1966. The applicant is unauthorizedly transporting

the sand. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.

7. The applicant has filed additional affidavit as counter

to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the prosecution and contended that

the applicant has been acquitted in C.R. No. 84 of 2003. The

respondent have contended that the applicant is habitual offender

and that he is involved in similar offence. The trial Court in the said

case has given finding that no witness had seen the accused

excavating the sand nor any inquiry was made in respect to the

owner of articles. Another receipt in respect to another truck was

Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 7 1-Aba-1859-2019.doc

for the month of July and the said receipt was issued in favour of

one Sunil Shantaram Raut from whom the applicant used to collect

sand. The applicant is not habitual offender. The applicant was

dealing with persons having royalty receipts and there was no

royalty receipt issued in his name and it is not his case that he had

royalty license with him. The receipts produced would show that

Collector had been issuing such royalty receipts.

8. On perusal of the documents it is apparent that the

case of the prosecution is that the truck owned by the applicant

was intercepted and it was carrying sand. The driver of the truck or

the applicant had allegedly not produced any royalty receipts. The

applicant has relied upon certain royalty receipts which indicate

that he was collecting sand from others to whom the royalty

receipts were issued and transporting it from his truck. On perusal

of the documents and affidavit-in-reply filed by the prosecution,

there is no cogent evidence to indicate that the applicant is

involved in theft of sand or any excavating the said illegal sand.

The case proceeds on the basis that transporting the said sand

without valid royalty receipts. On perusal of the receipts annexed

to the application it is apparent that during the concerned period

royalty receipts were indeed issued by the concerned department.

Sajakali Jamadar                     5 of 7
                                                         1-Aba-1859-2019.doc

The driver of the truck was arrested. On completing investigation,

charge-sheet has been filed against him. The learned Sessions

Judge while rejecting the application has observed that the

applicant was habitual offender and he is indulging in similar

offences. The applicant has relied upon the Judgment of the trial

Court delivered in C.R. No. 84 of 2013. The trial has resulted in

acquittal of the applicant. The applicant was granted interim

protection by this Court vide order dated 26 th August, 2019 and he

was directed to report Investigating Officer on stipulated dates. The

affidavit-in-reply filed by the prosecution mentions that pursuant to

the directions, the applicant had submitted the receipts which has

been seized vide panchanama dated 29th August, 2019. The receipts

produced by him shows that he was granted royalty permissions for

a period of 7th May, 2019, 24th June, 2019 and 12 th August, 2019.

The objection of the Investigating agency is that there was no

receipt for month of July - 2019. The applicant has cooperated

with the investigation. The fact that the charge-sheet is filed

against co-accused, who was arrested on the spot indicate that the

investigation is completed. The truck along with sand has been

seized during investigation. Considering the aforesaid factual

aspects, the applicant need not be subjected to custodial

interrogation.

Sajakali Jamadar                 6 of 7
                                                                   1-Aba-1859-2019.doc




9.                  Hence, I pass the following order:


                                     ORDER

            (i)     Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1859 of 2019 is
            allowed;

            (ii)    Interim order dated 26th August, 2019 is confirmed.

(iii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R. No. C.R. No. 48 of 2019 registered with Satpati Police Station, Dist. Palghar on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount;

(iv) The applicant shall report the investigating officer as and when called for till filing of charge-sheet.

(v) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.

(vi) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

                                                    (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)




Sajakali Jamadar                        7 of 7