CNR No. MHNS010032112022
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.794/2022.
( Manisha Sandip Jadhav Vs. State )
The present application is moved by the applicant­
accused Manisha Sandip Jadhav 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 she has been falsely implicated
in this crime, nothing is to be recovered from her. She is sole
earning member in the family and she has not cheated nor prepared
forged document and used the same as genuine. She is local
resident of Chasnali, Tal. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. She 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. There is no
overwriting in the permit. 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 has used the forged
permit as genuine by overwriting in it and the custodial
interrogation with applicant­accused is necessary for detail
investigation. Applicant­accused has transported the sand by
committing theft by using the permit. 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. The owner of the Dumper was disclosed
as Anil Gorakh Shirsath. On perusal of the permit it is containing
the name of applicant­accused. There is some overwriting in the
permit No.373 in column No.6. So far as column eTP No. it is left
blank. The said vehicle was containing 30 Ton 920 KG sand. 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 also moved the anticipatory
bail and at present as per police record he is absconding. 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
Cri. Bail Application No.794/2022.
..3..

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. It is
the case of dishonest removing sand from the river bed which is the
property of the state without its consent constituting theft under
section 378 of IPC punishable under section 379 of the IPC.
Granting regular bail in the case to one of the accused is not a
ground to consider the present anticipatory bail application in
favour of the applicant­accused as criteria for both the regular bail
and the anticipatory bail are different. Therefore, prima faice the
case is made out against the applicant­accused 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 01.07.2022
No.794/2022
is
hereby
Digitally signed
by SHINDE
MADHAV A
Date: 2022.07.02
10:59:17 +0530
( M.A. Shinde )
Additional Sessions Judge­9,
Nashik.