SAU. MANDA SUGREEV WAYKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant couple is seeking bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.222/2020 registered under Section 420 , 464 , 465 , 467 , 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) In substance, the allegations are to the effect that a truck was intercepted by Karjat Police in the village limits of Chaundi and 24 tons of rice was found being transported in it. Co-accused Sandip and Shashikant who were the drivers on the truck disclosed that another accused Subhash Daithankar had prepared a bogus bilty and had loaded goods from the ration shop of the applicant no.1 and was to be delivered at Navsari (Gujrat). They also disclosed that the two sons of the applicants loaded the bags in the truck at Sonegaon. The applicant No.1 possess a licence to run a fair price shop at Sonegaon and was carrying on the business with the help of her husband the applicant No.2. It is further alleged that when the Officer from the District Supply Office visited the shop it was found locked. In spite of message having been passed on the applicants did not turn up to open it. It had to be opened in presence of Panchas. Some record was available in side the shop. It was found that some quantity of grain worth Rs.2960/- was in excess. Similarly many empty gunny bags were found at the spot and it was suspected that the applicants along with co-accused have indulged in the criminal activity of disposing of grain which was meant for supply to the poor and downtrodden.

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the truck was intercepted at a far away place. Except inadmissible statements of the co- accused drivers there is no record to reveal that the grain that was being transported in the truck was loaded at the shop of the applicants. There is no record to show that those were supplied to the shop of the applicants for being distributed to the beneficiaries. In fact, excess stock worth Rs.2960/- was found in the applicants' shop. There is no question of any misappropriation. The applicants cannot be allowed to be arrested just to enable the Investigating Officer to indulge in fishing inquiry. The applicants are businessmen and are ready to cooperate the Investigating Officer. Assuming that the grain seized was meant for distribution to the beneficiaries, still, the applicants cannot be attributed with any overt act as far as the alleged forgery and cheating is concerned. The applicant no.1 is a woman and no purpose would be served by allowing her arrest without bail.