ABA/1616/2021 of VIJAY S/O YASHWANT MAHALE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 31 December 2021

Arguments

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1616 OF 2021

Vijay s/o. Yashwant Mahale and others..PetitionersVersusState of Maharashtra ..Respondent …

Advocate for the Applicants : Mr. G. L. DeshpandeAPP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. G. SangaleAPP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. G. Sangale

...

CORAM : SANDEEPKUMAR C. MORE, J.

DATE : 31.12.2021

PER COURT :

The applicants are seeking their release on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 180 of 2021registered with Shindkheda Police Station, Dhule, for the ofencepunishable under Section 395, 353, 341, 506, 143 of the IndianPenal Code.

2. According to the First Information Report (FIR), theinformant on 07-12-2021 at about 12.40 a.m. had received theinformation about illegal excavation of “Murum” at villageRudane. The informant i.e. Upper Tahsildar directed one Talathito make inquiry in respect of the same. During the said inquiry, it was found that the persons who were found to be on the spotof the incident, were not having any valid license to excavatesuch “Murum”. When two tractors and one JCB machine, whichwere being used for such excavation, were taken in possession,huge crowd gathered over there. The informant went on thespot at about 6.45. He found the present applicants beingowners and drivers of those two tractors there. The trolleysattached to those tractors were also having around 1.25 brassof “Murum” each. When the informant asked the applicants totake those tractors and also JCB machine to Shindkheda PoliceStation for further action, the other co-accused came there andassaulted the informant. The crowd also took away those twotractors and JCB machine from the spot of the incident withoutpermission of the informant.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that theapplicants are only respective owners and drivers of the tractorsand they were in fact taking Murum from their own land. Hefurther submits that there is no overt-act from the side of theseapplicants. But, the main allegation appears to be against co-accused Shri Govind Dharam Nagrale, who had in fact tried toassault the informant.

4. On the contrary, the learned APP strongly opposed theapplication by placing reliance on the investigation papers andsubmitted that, the applicants were taking Murum by carryingout excavation from the land of third person i.e. one HirabaiSakharam Choudhari. Moreover, there was no license issued bythe concerned authorities in favour of the present applicants.

5. Heard rival submission of both the parties and alsoperused the documents and investigation papers.

6. Admittedly, the present applicants are respective ownersand drivers of the two tractors, found on the spot containing125 Brass Murum each. Further, the investigation papers alsoindicate that the said illegal excavation was going on in the landnot owned by the applicants, but, in the land owned by HirabaiSakharam Choudhari, who had stated before the Investigatingofficer that certain persons, without obtaining any license fromthe concerned authorities or any permission from her used toexcavate Murum from her feld illegally and without paying anyamount to her. Further, the applicants were not having anyvalid license of the concerned authorities to excavate theMurum from the spot of incident.

7. Moreover, there was attempt of assaulting the informantat the hands of one of the co-accused and the crowd gatheredat the spot of incident had also illegally taken away those twotractors and JCB machine from the custody of the informant.Under such circumstances, the custodial interrogation of theapplicants is needed to verify the facts which are to beinvestigated. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant any pre-arrest bail to the present applicants.

8. Hence, the following order :- ORDER

The application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

( SANDEEPKUMAR C. MORE ) JUDGE