SAGAR DADA MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for anticipatory bail in C.R. No. 50 of 2020 registered with Barshi City Police Station, District, Solapur for offences punishable under Sections 353, 379 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 48(7) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 and Sections 9 & 15 of the Environment Protection Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that, on 2nd February, 2020 the Naib Tahsildar instructed the complainant to initiate action with regards to the truck intercepted with murum. Hence, the complainant went to the said place. Vehicle was taken to Barshi City Police Station hence, the complainant went to the Police Station. He was told that the vehicle contains murum. He inquired with the driver of the vehicle about the permission/royalty of excavating or transporting murum. He was taking photographs of the vehicle while conducting Panchnama. He told the driver to switch off the vehicle however, the driver fled away from the place with vehicle. At that time one person came there. He gave his name and informed that he is owner of the vehicle and he told the driver to take murum to godown. The complainant visited godown but the vehicle was not found. Hence, it was noticed that the accused committed theft of vehicle and had also obstructed to discharge of duty. The FIR was registered on 2nd February, 2020. The applicant had preferred application for bail before the Sessions Court which has been rejected by order dated 17th February, 2020. The applicant is the person who informed that he is owner of vehicle.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not the owner of vehicle. The murum which was allegedly taken from the vehicle was not found in the godown. Photographs of the vehicle were published in the newspaper which shows that there was no murum in the vehicle. The co-accused was arrested and remanded to custody. There is no provision in Law requiring permission for transporting murum from private person. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.