RAOSAHEB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicants in these applications are seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.I-36 registered with MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar, for ofence punishable under Ss. 304, 328 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). The First Information Report (for short "FIR") was lodged on 14/2/2017. Subsequently, provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act (for short "MCOC Act") were invoked vide Sec. 3(1) (ii), 3(2), 3(4) and Sec. 4 of the MCOC Act and Ss. 65 (c) (f), 68 (b), Sec. 80 of Bombay Prohibition Act also invoked.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the Applicant in Criminal Bail Application No. 919 of 2019 submitted that, the Applicant Yakub Shaikh is not concerned with manufacturing of spurious liquor. The allegation against him are vague. The provisions of M.C.O.C. Act are not attracted in the present case. The Applicant is in custody from the date of arrest. Co-accused Amit Wasumal Motiyani (accused No. 18) has been granted bail by the Special Court by order dtd. 16/4/2018. There is no material on record to show complicity of the Applicant in manufacturing and distributing any poisonous Indian or Foreign liquor. There is no material to indicate that Applicant is a party to any conspiracy to manufacture and distribute any poisonous liquor. There is no material to indicate that the Applicant is party to any conspiracy to manufacture, sell or distribute any poisonous liquor, role with regard to mixing of Ethyl alcohol and Methyl alcohol in regulatory to prepare illicit liquor is attracted to other accused. The allegation against the Applicant is of general nature that he along with accused no. 17 received duplicate seal and label of various brands of liquor which was later on labeled and sealed. This allegation is not supported by any evidence. He had no connection with manufacturing illicit liquor and he was not even aware about the same. He was helping at the request of accused No.9 Zakir Shaikh who was his relative. The provisions of M.C.O.C. Act are not attracted in the instant case in absence of any material to suggest commission of ofence of organized crime by the Applicant. The ofence relates to Bombay Provisions Act and the same would not attracted the provisions of MCOC Act. There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant has engaged in any continuing unlawful activities or had committed ofence of organized crime.