Bombay High Court
Shankarlal Govindram Kamrani vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 July, 2023
Bench: Amit Borkar
2023:BHC-AS:18879
39-aba1897-2023.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1897 OF 2023
Shankarlal Govindram Kamrani ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. Tushar Chavan for the applicant.
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for the respondent/State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JULY 10, 2023
P.C.:
1. The applicant is seeking relief under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in connection with C.R. No.100 of
2023 dated 16 May 2023 2022 registered with Ozar Police Station
for offences punishable under Sections 328, 272, 273 and 188 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 30(2)(a) of the Food
Safety and Standard Act, 2006.
2. The case of prosecution is that on a secret informant
received that the applicant is selling banned food articles, the
respondent conducted raid at about 2.20 p.m., they found articles
like scented supari, jarda, gutkha, pan masala, tobacco etc. worth
Rs.59,867/- including cash amount of Rs.3,900/-. Accordingly, first
information report was lodged.
39-aba1897-2023.doc
3. Apprehending arrest, the applicant filed application under
Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the
Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad
rejected the application by order dated 20 June 2023. The
applicant, therefore, filed present anticipatory bail application.
4. According to him, there is no material to show that the
applicant has administered contraband substance. The prohibited
substances has been seized and, therefore, custodial interrogation
of the applicant is not necessary. He is 70 years old having heart
ailment. He is ready to cooperate with the investigation.
5. Per contra, learned APP submitted that the applicant was
found in possession of the prohibited substances. It is necessary to
unearth traces of larger supply of banned substances. He
submitted that the coordinate Benches of this Court in case of
Sagar Sadashiv Kore v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 6568 and in Ankush v. State, thr PSO,
reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 11384 and Pathan Shafi
Khan Rehemat Khan v. State of Maharashtra reported in
2021 SCC OnLine Bom13367 and unreported judgment of this
Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No.483 of 2021
(Mohammed Ali Raheman Alias MohammedAli Abdul Raheman
Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra) decided on 24 March 2021
refused to grant pre-arrest protection to the applicants therein
having similar role attributed to the applicants therein.
6. I have considered the submissions on behalf of both the
sides. Prima facie, prohibited substance has been seized from the
39-aba1897-2023.doc
applicant a as owner of shop. Considering the nature of allegations
against the applicant, it is necessary that detailed investigation as
regards existence of any racket operating in prohibited substance
need to be investigated. It is also necessary to investigate source of
such supply and acquisition. It is also necessary to investigate into
the names and identity of purchasers of the prohibited substance
from the applicant.
7. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Ankush (supra) in
paragraph 8 observed thus:
"8. It is not in dispute that Gutka (chewing tobacco made
from crushed areca nut, tobacco, catechu, paraffin wax,
slaked lime etc.) and Pan Masala (combination of betel leaf
and areca nut with or without tobacco) are seriously
detrimental to health and the consumption thereof is
identified as a major cause of oral cancer. The said products
contain carcinogens and are known to be highly addictive.
The State Government has exercised, from time to time, the
statutory power under the FSS Act to prohibit the
manufacture, storage, distribution and transport or sale of
tobacco, whether flavoured, scented or mixed with other
ingredients such as nicotine, menthol etc."
8. The coordinate Bench has relied upon an unreported
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (Aurangabad Bench)
in the case of Zahir Ibrahim Panja v. State of Maharashtra
in Criminal Application No.4968 of 2016.
9. In the case of Pathan Shafi Khan Rehemat Khan
(supra), co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the issues
of applicability of Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. I
respectfully agree with the views taken by the co-ordinate Bench.
39-aba1897-2023.doc
10. Therefore, in my opinion, considering the allegations against
the applicant, no case for grant of pre-arrest protection is made
out.
11. The anticipatory bail application, therefore, stands rejected.
No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
