LALIT SOMDUTTA NAGPAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Advocate appearing for the Applicant and the Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) THE offence registered against the Applicant is of a very serious nature. The offence registered against the Applicant and another co-accused is under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the Applicant did not surrender for a period of more than six months after the order of the Apex Court denying the Anticipatory Bail to him. He pointed out that the Applicant has criminal antecedents and in another case provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 have been applied against the Applicant. Relying upon the statement of one of the witnesses Jagdish Parab recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he submitted that the Applicant is the main culprit in the entire offence and he is involved in large scale activities of adulteration of Petroleum Products. He pointed out the allegations made against the Applicant.