1 MHNS010047652022 Order below Exh. 1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 1104/2022.

1.This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. in C.R.No. I­105/2022 registered against applicant Akash Daga Koli at Bhadrakali Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 65 (a), (e), 80, 81, 83, 90, 103, 108 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

2.It is submitted by the applicant that this is second anticipatory bail application. In earlier bail application bearing no. 699 of 2022 was rejected since then charge­sheet has not been filed. After rejecting the application notice has been issued under section 41(1)(a) and 91 of Cr.P.C. Applicant apprehends that if he goes for inquiry he will be arrested. Hence, the present application. He has no concern with the present crime. The vehicle seized in the present crime bearing no. MH­48­
T­1628 is owned by him which he had given on rent. Co­accused has taken the vehicle on rent to transport the goods. He was not aware whether he has used the vehicle for transporting liquor. Applicant has apprehension that he will be arrested in the present crime merely because the vehicle is owned by him. Offence leveled against him are not attracted.

He has not participated directly and indirectly in the offence. He has no connection with the goods seized. Nothing has to be recovered from him.

Co­accused Mohanlal Bhagirathiji has been released on bail, hence, on the ground of parity he is also entitled. Hence, prayed that pre­arrest bail application be granted.

3.Say was called of the investigating officer. He has objected this application on the count that, on verifying the ownership of the vehicle bearing no. MH­48­T­1628 they came to know that it is owned by Akash Koli. Owner of the seized vehicle bearing no. MH­48­T­1628 is of other state and the owner knew that it was used for transportation of liquor even then he allowed him to use the vehicle. The vehicle was transferred from the name of Milind Kakade to Akash Koli on 12.05.2022.

Notice has been issued to Akash Koli but he has not appeared. The owner of the vehicle had knowledge that the vehicle is been used to transport foreign liquor even then he has given the vehicle to the arrested accused.

Involvement of the owner of the vehicle and arrested accused reflect that the arrested accused has without taking license of the government using the vehicle for transporting liquor illegally from other state. Liquor worth Rs. 24,38,800/­ was seized from Mohanlal Bishonoi.

4.Offence is serious in nature as it effects the health of the public as well as the Government revenue. The present offence has been committed for avoiding the revenue of the government. They have not received documents of the vehicle from State Transport however the applicant himself has stated that he is the owner which he gives on rent.

Hence, it reflects direct involvement of the present applicant as he has given his vehicle for transporting liquor from other states for which he receiving monetary benefit. Statement has been recorded to that behalf which reflects his involvement. Offence is of serious nature. There is possibility of destroying the evidence. There is possibility of interstate racket, hence, prayed that application be rejected.

5.Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant and Ld. APP for the State. It is argued by the Advocate for the applicant that after rejection of the first anticipatory bail application no. 699/2022 applicant has received notice under Section 41(1)(a) and 91 of Cr.P.C. Applicant apprehend that police will arrest that if he attends the inquiry. It is contended by Advocate for the applicant that this is change in circumstances to consider the present application. On the other hand Ld. APP has objected this application on the count that there is no change in circumstances to consider the present application. Already the first bail application has been rejected.

6.The sole ground for moving the present application is that applicant has received the notice under section 41(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to state that all the grounds stated in the present application were already dealt in the earlier application. Merely because notice has been given under section 41(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. it cannot be inferred that there is change in circumstances to consider the present application. It is seen from the say of investigating officer that applicant vehicle has been used for transportation of liquor in other state without obtaining license with connivance with other accused. Investigating Officer has categorically stated that applicant with the intention to avoid revenue of the state.

They have to inquire about the knowledge and involvement of the present applicant in such circumstance interrogation is necessary. No new ground has been made to consider the present application, hence, I proceed to pass following order :­

O R D E R
1] The application stands rejected.

2] Inform concerned police station accordingly.

Sd/­xxx Nashik. (V.S.Malkalpatte­Reddy) Date : 16/09/2022. Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.