CNR No. MHNS010032832022
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.815/2022.
( Anil Gorakshnath Shirsath Vs. State )
The present application is moved by the applicant­
accused Anil Gorakshnath Shirsath under section 438 of Cr.P.C. in
connection with CR No. 123/2022 registered with Wavi Police
Station, Tal. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik for the offence U/s. 379, 420, 465,
467, 468, 471 r/w sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and under
section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 on
1.6.2022.
2.

It is stated in the application that, the applicant­accused
has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in
this crime, nothing is to be recovered from him. He is sole earning
member in the family and he has not cheated nor prepared forged
document and used the same as genuine. He is owner of the
Dumper and local resident of Musalgaon, Tal. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik.
He is ready to abide all conditions laid down by this Court. The
offence is lodged on suspicion and therefore, applicant­accused has
apprehension of arrest in connection of the said crime. There are no
criminal antecedents of the applicant­accused, these and other
ground set out in the application, prayed to allow the anticipatory
bail application.
3.

Application is opposed by the State vide Exh.4 and 5.

I.O. is absent, but his representative is present before the court and
filed the police papers of investigation done so far.
4.

Heard both the parties.

5.

The learned counsel for applicant­accused Shri. N.B.

..2..

Gangawane submitted that, applicant­accused has not committed
cheating nor used the forged permit as a genuine. Applicant­accused
has not played any role in the crime. One of the accused in the
crime is enlarged on regular bail by this Court and hence prayed
that anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant­accused.
6.

The learned APP Shri. Suryavanshi opposed the bail
application stating that the applicant­accused is owner of the
Dumper by which sand was transported. More so, till today the
name of Kalvindar Singh appearing on the permit is not traced out
to which this applicant has contacted to transport the sand, this
itself shows that, the applicant­accused is also consciously involved
in the present crime and the custodial interrogation with applicant­
accused is necessary for detail investigation. Therefore, he
submitted that the bail application may be rejected.
7.

Perused entire record. On perusal of the entire record, it
appears that, the police have seized a Dumper bearing No. MH­15­
EG­9030 containing sand in excess of its permit limit. As it is the
case of illegal mining and transportation of sand and therefore, the
police have registered the case, seized vehicle alongwith sand. It is
stated at bar by the learned counsel for the applicant­accused that,
the owner of the said vehicle has no connection with the present
crime as his driver has contracted the transport of sand on the spot
and therefore, this applicant­accused has no idea about the illegal
transportation of the sand. The said contention cannot be accepted
because it is the owner, who contracts the transportation with the
third party after finalizing the rate of transportation as per his
instruction the vehicle used to be made available for transportation.
Int he case in hand, till today police could trace out the alleged
Cri. Bail Application No.815/2022.
..3..

purchaser of the sand by name Kalvindar Singh and police are
suspecting that there is no person by name Kalvindar Singh and
therefore, the entire transaction appears to be fake and concocted.
The act on the part of the accused is serious and criminal in nature
and the same is causing intentional loss to the public exchequer.
Therefore, the police are required to be given sufficient opportunity
to investigate the matter and therefore, custodial interrogation of
applicant­accused is necessary and I.O. is required to be given
opportunity to unearth the syndicate involving in illegal mining.
Therefore, prima faice the case is made out against the applicant­
accused by the prosecution. In the result applicant­accused is not
entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, following order.
ORDER
1)
Anticipatory
rejected.

bail
application
2)
Inform to concern police station accordingly.

SHINDE
MADHAV
A
Date­ 11.07.2022
No.815/2022
is
hereby
Digitally signed by
SHINDE MADHAV
A
Date: 2022.07.11
17:53:07 +0530
( M.A. Shinde )
Additional Sessions Judge­9,
Nashik.