1 924 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 924 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1123 OF 2024 UDAY KESHAV BARHATE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Atul Pawar h/f. Mr. Bhausaheb Sadashivrao Deshmukh APP for Respondent/State: Ms. Neha B. Kamble ... CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 11th MARCH, 2025 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State. 2. The applicant has approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.29/2024, registered with State Excise Department Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 65a, b, c, d, e, f and 81, 83, 86, 90, 98, 108 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 & Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case in the FIR is that, when the police raided in the factory premises manufacturing illicit liquor on the basis of an information given by a company manufacturing liquor. On such raid being conducted, it was found that the factory was manufacturing illicit 2025:BHC-AUG:7170 2 924 liquor in the name of the complainant’s company and also on the co- accused being arrested on the spot, information was received from the co-accused that the raw material is procured from the present applicant and the same is stored in the premises of the applicant. As such, another raid was conducted on the premises of the present applicant i.e. the dhaba and in adjacent field and on that place certain raw material was found used for manufacturing of the illicit liquor and 5 boxes of the country liquor was also found and, so also, raw material of about Rs.6,00,000/- was also found. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is nowhere concerned with the said premises, so also, the statement of the co-accused cannot be relied upon for the purpose of arresting the applicant. 5. Per contra, the learned APP submits that on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the raid was conducted on the premises of the applicant and the raw material used to prepare illicit liquor was found on the premises of the applicant. She submits that on inquiry from the neighbourers it is revealed that the premises is owned by the applicant, so also, there is similar antecedent against the applicant. 3 924 6. Considering the overall aspect of the matter, this is not the fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. The Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe