GOVIND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant apprehending arrest in CR No.465 of 2020 dated 27.07.2020 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna for the offences punishable under section 328 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 65(a) and 65(e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, has preferred this application.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to reject the application seeking anticipatory bail filed by the applicant. Also perused the FIR and papers of investigation.

(3.) In brief, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the accusations against the applicant are baseless. On the basis of false complaint lodged at the instance of the informant police official, there is likelihood that the applicant may be arrested, humiliated and harassed for no offence committed on his part. By referring to accusations made against the applicant in the FIR, the learned counsel submits that the facts stated in the FIR itself spell out that the applicant was not caught on the spot while possessing or selling the country made liquor. As per the disclosure made in the FIR, the person selling the liquor ran away as soon as he saw the police personnel. On inquiry made to the person in the vicinity the informant came to know the name of the person as Govind Dharamvir Ridla i.e. the present applicant. It is submitted that hardly there is any evidence to establish the complicity of the applicant in commission of offences, registered under CR No.465 of 2020. It is further submitted that on the face of the allegations made in the FIR, the offence under section 328 of the IPC is not attracted. So also, it is nowhere mentioned in the FIR that the applicant was found transporting the intoxicant so as to attract the offence under section 65(e) . It is further submitted that section 65(e) is bailable as the applicant has not committed similar type of offence in the past.