Bombay High Court
Vijay Babasaheb Jarhad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 June, 2022
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 915-ABA.802-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.802 OF 2022
VIJAY BABASAHEB JARHAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shermale K. N.
APP for Respondent-State : Ms. V. S. Choudhari.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 30.06.2022
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned APP for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant read the FIR. It
reveals that the tractor owned by the applicant was seized by
the complainant, as it was carrying the sand without any
permit from the Revenue Department. When the tractor with
trolley was to be taken to the Tahsil Office, the applicant
reached there and promised that "he would take the tractor
and trolley at Tahsil Office", but in the midway, he unloaded
the sand from the tractor and the driver flee away with the
tractor.
2 915-ABA.802-22.odt
3. He would also argued that said tractor has been seized
by the police. No notice under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. has
been served upon the applicant. He relied on the case of
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another [(2014) 8
Supreme Court Cases 273]. He would submit that in view of
the ratio laid down in the Arnesh Kumar's case, the offences
applied against the applicant are punished with less than five
years. Therefore, the police has no right to arrest for their
satisfaction. He also added that there are Goverment
Resolutions which allowed the villagers to excavate small
quantity of one brass of sand from the river, without permit
from Government. Therefore, the interim protection may be
granted.
4. Learned APP would submit that she has no instructions
as regards to the seizure of the tranctor. The applicant has tried
to disappear the evidence and flee away with the tractor. The
conduct of the applicant is self evident that he was involved in
the theft of the sand. Considering the facts and circumstances,
the applicant is not entitled for interim protection.
5. The allegations as reflected in the FIR are that the
applicant promised to take the tractor with sand to the Tahsil
Office. His driver unloaded the sand in midway and flee away
3 915-ABA.802-22.odt
with the tractor. It has been alleged against the applicant that
he has committed theft. The rule laid down in Arnesh Kumar
does not confer absolute right to have the protection from
arrest. There are certain riders in paragraph No.7.1 of the said
judgment. Be that as it may, prima facie it appears that the
applicant instead of taking the tractor with trolley to the Tahsil
Office, he unload the sand from the trolley and flee away from
the spot of incident. The learned APP seeks time to verify the
fact whether the tractor is seized or not. Considering the facts
and cirucmstances, this Court is not satisfied that this is a fit
case to grant interim protection to the applicant.
6. Hence, issue notice to the respondent, returnable on
18.07.2022. Learned APP waives service of notice for the
respondent-State.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
