BALKRISHNA VITHAL RAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nikam, learned APP for the State. The applicant seeks to be released on bail in Crime No.8/2007 registered by Saswad Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 328, 420, 471 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under section 65(K) (D) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on getting information that accused Nos.1 to 5 named in the FIR were selling illicit liquor; police party raided the spot and arrested all those 5 accused persons on the spot with illicit liquor and the material used for the purpose of distillation of the illicit liquor. Spirit was being used for making liquor. THEy also found some bottles having labels of foreign liquor. In those bottles illicit liquor with spirit was being filled in and there was also facility for sealing the bottles. All the material was seized and the offence came to be registered against those 5 persons. Later on it was revealed that the present applicant, who is hotelier, used to take liquor bottles from accused Nos.1 to 5 and sell the same at his hotel. Such liquor bottles were found in his possession. THErefore, the present applicant was added accused No.6 in the matter. THE application filed by the present applicant came to be rejected by the Court below mainly on the ground that there is a serious charge under section 328 IPC because there was allegation that the accused used to prepare country liquor by using spirit and other intoxicant articles which are dangerous to the health of the public at large. It was also observed that the present applicant, who is accused No.6, used to deal in such liquor prepared by the other accused and he is more dangerous because he actually serves the illicit liquor to the public at large. In these circumstances, the original accused No.6 has come to this Court seeking bail.

(3.) AS per the prosecution case accused Nos.1 to 5 were in possession of denatured spirit and it was altered or was being altered into intoxicant which could be used for human consumption and as far as present applicant is concerned he was not manufacturer, nor he himself had made any alteration. Therefore case against him could fall under section 66 and under Section 67-1A of Bombay Prohibition Act. If it is his first offence under section 66 the punishment is only six months imprisonment and fine which may extend to Rs.1000.00 and for the offence under section 67-1A he may be punished with imprisonment which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to Rs.1000.00. Both the offences are bailable.