1 300.25ABA+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.300 OF 2025 Sani Ashokkumar Tejwani Age: 28 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Old Sindhi Colony, Nandurbar Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar. .. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector, Nandurbar City Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar. .. RESPONDENT … Mrs. Rashmi Kulkarni, Advocate holding for Mr.G.R.Ingole, Advocate the applicant Ms. Neha B. Kamble, APP for the respondent-State … WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.301 OF 2025 Sani Ashokkumar Tejwani Age: 28 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Old Sindhi Colony, Nandurbar Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar. .. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Inspector, Nandurbar City Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar. .. RESPONDENT 2025:BHC-AUG:9083 2 300.25ABA+ … Mrs. Rashmi Kulkarni, Advocate holding for Mr. G.R.Ingole, Advocate the applicant Mr.A.A.A.Khan, APP for the respondent-State … CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 26.03.2025 P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the respondent-State. 2] The applicant in ABA No.300/2025 is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 0044/2025, registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, Taluka and District Nandurbar, for the offence punishable under Section 15 and 5 of the Environment [Protection] Act, 1986 and under Section 110, 223, 292, 293 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the applicant in ABA No.301/2025 is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 0047/2025, registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, Taluka and District Nandurbar, for the offence punishable under Section 15 and 5 of the Environment [Protection] Act, 1986 and under Section 110, 223, 292, 293 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. is not maintainable as it is filed by police 3 300.25ABA+ constable and there is no disobedience of order of public servant, and therefore, section 223 of B.N.S. would no apply. The learned counsel submits that there is bar of section 215 of B.N.S.S. to register the instant F.I.R. The learned counsel also submits that section 299 of the IPC would not apply in the instant case as there is no intent to commit murder or there is no attempt to commit murder and there is no positive act at the instance of the applicant. The learned counsel also submits that in view of the provision of Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1956, no cognizance can be taken for the offences under sections 5 and 15 of the Act, as Section 19 provides that the complaint need to be made by the Central Government or by any Officer authorized by the Central Government and in the instant case, the F.I.R. is registered at the instance of police constable. The learned counsel submits that in absence of any specific authority given by the Central Government or any other authority, the F.I.R. cannot be registered at the instance of the police constable. 4] The learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment in the case of Hia Shwe and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2020 (4) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 154 and also submits that there are no antecedents against the applicant and there is no grievance noted of any individual in the vicinity for having suffered by Manja injury. It is submitted that the case against the applicant is 4 300.25ABA+ based on the statement of the co-accused. She, therefore, submits that for the above reasons, the anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant. 5] Per contra, the learned APP submits that there are directions issued by the State and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the issue as regards manja was taken by the National Green Tribunal in Original Application No.284/2016 & 442/2026 wherein by order dated 11.07.2017, it was observed that there shall be a total ban on the manja or thread for the kite flying, which is made of nylon or any synthetic material and/or coated with synthetic substance and is non-biodegradable. The Tribunal had directed all the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories to enforce prohibition of manufacturing and use of synthetic manja and directed to ban its import. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, vide order dated 30.12.2020 in Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation [Stamp] No.26591 of 2020, directed the police authorities to register the offence against shop-keepers supplying the nylon, so also, by the orders dated 01.01.2021, 12.01.2022, 02.03.2022, 01.12.2022, 13.01.2023, 16.01.2023, 09.01.2024, 27.11.2024 and 08.01.2025. 6] It is submitted that in view of the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal and the Bombay High Court, the State Government issued a Notification on 5 300.25ABA+ 26.06.2024, by which the Superintendent of Police under Section 163 (3) of the B.N.S.S. issued an order dated 10.01.2025 and banned the manufacturing, sell, purchase and use of manja from 10.01.2025 to 07.02.2025 and authorized the Police Station Officers in-charge to take action. In pursuance thereto, the teams were formed to take raids. It is also submitted that in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & another reported in [2014] 9 SCC 129 that law can be set in motion by anyone where the directions of the Hon’ble High Court are violated. It is further stated that Section 110 would apply in the instant case as the applicant has acted against prohibitory order and attempted to commit culpable homicide with knowledge and intent. The State has also relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crime Nos.40/2025, 41/2025 and 43/2025 dated 14.01.2025 and that this Court considered that the sale of nylon manja has become a social problem and there is need of complete investigation and rejected the anticipatory bail applications of similar persons, who are suppliers of nylon and their names were taken by the co-accused. 7] It is further submitted that bar under Section 215 of the BNS to register offence and reliance in the case of Hia Shwe Vs. State of Maharashtra [supra] cannot be applied in the case of anticipatory bail. 6 300.25ABA+ 8] Considering rival submissions, this Court, by order dated 20.02.2025 in ABA No.215/2025 along with connected applications, in similarly situated persons, has taken a view that sale of nylon manja is a social problem and complete investigation in the matter would be necessary and rejected the said applications. 9] As regards submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no disobedience of order of public servant and therefore section 223 of the B.N.S. would not apply. It is to be noticed that the State Government has issued a Notification dated 26.06.2024 and in pursuance of the said Notification, the Superintendent of Police issued an order dated 10.01.2025 under Section 163 (3) of the B.N.S.S. thereby banned the manufacturing, sell, purcahse and use of manja from 10.01.2025 to 07.02.2025 and authorized the police station officers in charge to take action. Thus, there is violation of prohibition of order under Section 163 (3) and offence under Section 223 would apply. 10] This Court is of the prima facie view that directions are issued to ban the manufacture, sell, purchase and use of Manja in pursuance of the direction of N.G.T. as such, offence under Section 15 of the Environment 7 300.25ABA+ [Protection] Act, 1986 would primarily be applicable. Issue of violation of Section 19 can be raised at trial. Prima facie, NGT has to issue direction for ban on manja and consequent thereto further actions are initiated by the Government. 11] For applicability of Section 110 of the B.N.S., it is prima facie to be noticed that use of nylon manja has resulted in death of riders of two wheeler in the State. Thus, at this stage, it is not necessary that the prosecution has to come with the case that there is actual homicide death by use of manja sold by the applicant for applicability of Section 110 of the B.N.S. In any event the matter is at investigation stage and the items sold are potentially dangerous, which would cause serious damage including homicide of the person moving on two wheelers. This Court has already noticed that the sale of nylon manja is a social problem and complete investigation is necessary to find out the source and racket involved in procuring and selling of manja and the same would not be possible without custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. In view of the same, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present applications are dismissed. 12] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall not be 8 300.25ABA+ influenced by the observations of this Court while deciding regular bail or at trial. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC