RB42BA1717-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1717 of 2026 Rushikesh Uttam Patil, Age 32 years, Occu: Business R/o Hari Om Nagar Shahad, Tq. Shahada Dist. Nandurbar (presently in Magistrate custody) ... Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Officer Incharge of Mhasavad Police Station,Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. … Respondent ..... Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant Mrs Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent State CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAONKAR, J. DATE: 21st September, 2026 ORDER:- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. By the present application, the applicant is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 244 of 2026 registered with Mhasavad Police Station District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 65(e), 108 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the basis of source information about unauthorized storage and transportation of liquor, 1 of 6 2026:BHC-AUG:42967 RB42BA1717-26 the police conducted raid in the premises of Hari Om Fiber Pvt. Ltd. on 09.07.2026. In the said raid, they found a large quantity of liquor in the godown and in the vehicles at the premises. The seizer, including the vehicles, is valued in the FIR approximately at Rs. Four Crores and three persons were found and arrested on the spot. The investigation proceeded and during investigation, involvement of several other accused persons was noticed and, therefore, the offence became inter State operation. 4. The present applicant came to be arrested in connection with the alleged offence on 17.07.2026 and since then, he is in custody. According to the prosecution, the allegations against the present applicant are that he is in control and possession/ownership of the premises in which the alleged liquor was found. The second allegation against the present applicant is that the present applicant had permitted to co-accused Sattar Mohan Thakre to use the said premises and have supplied the key of the said premises for the purpose of access. It is also an allegation that against the use of the said premises, the present applicant was to receive the proceeds from the said offence. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant was neither present at the time of raid nor he is named in the FIR. The implication of the present applicant is followed by the discovery that his name appeared in the property record. The another important limb of the argument of the learned Advocate for the applicant is that the premises in which the alleged liquor was found 2 of 6 RB42BA1717-26 had been the subject matter of the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, and pursuant to those proceedings, the premises have already been taken into possession by the State Bank of India in the month of April, 2024. He, thus, submits that the applicant cannot be said to be the owner and possessor of the said premises and even otherwise his argument is that the ownership alone cannot establish the knowledge of the liquor stored in the premises. He submitted that the articles have already been seized and the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. He, thus, argues that merely because the premises in which the alleged liquor was stored belongs to the present applicant, he cannot be said to be a member of an organized crime as required under the provisions of Section 111 of the BNS. Absence of criminal antecedents against the present applicant also justifies, according the learned counsel, that he is neither a member of syndicate nor he is involved in any continuing unlawful activity which are the main ingredients to attract section 111 of the BNS. He, thus, submits that taking into consideration that the applicant has been in jail since 17.07. 2026, his bail application be considered and he be released on bail. 5. The learned APP, however strongly objects and opposes the bail applicant. She relies on the scale of the seizure, the alleged use of the applicant’s premises and the prosecution’s assertion that he knowingly made them available for the activity. She submits that the 3 of 6 RB42BA1717-26 source of movement of the liquor remains under investigation. The present applicant has been part of the syndicate and the other members of the said syndicate who are named in the present offence are absconding. According to her, if the applicant is released on bail, then he may obstruct the investigation or influence the witnesses. 6. I have considered the submissions and papers of investigation which have been relied upon by the learned APP. The quantity seized and the alleged use of several vehicles makes the accusation serious. The applicant’s case cannot be assessed on the footing that the ownership is the only allegation against him. The prosecution also alleges permission to use the premises, delivery of the key and the share in the proceeds. Equally, the Bank’s possession notice does not, without more, establish that the applicant had lost physical access to or control over the said property. Perusal of the Bank’s possession notice, which is annexed to the present application, suggest that the physical possession was with the present applicant and it was only a symbolic possession that was taken by the Bank. 7. The question whether the applicant participated in the activity must be determined at the time of trial. The document shows that the investigation is in progress and even chemical analyzer’s report of the seized liquor is awaited. Taking into consideration the offences alleged against the present applicant, Section 65(e) of the BNS provides for imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. Though Section 111 of the BNS provides for punishment 4 of 6 RB42BA1717-26 which may extend to imprisonment for life, the said section, in itself contains certain essential ingredients which need to be satisfied. Section 111 attracts only in a situation where there is continuing unlawful activity and the person who has been alleged under section 111 is found to be a member of the syndicate. Presently, at least before this court, the prosecution has not produced any material to demonstrate that these ingredients are satisfied against the present applicant. On the contrary, it is an admitted position that there are no criminal antecedents against the present applicant. 8. Even attraction of Section 108 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, which concerns a person holding a licence, permit, pass or authorization who deals in an intoxicant without payment of prescribed duty or fees, attracts punishment which varies with the number of offences. Whether its stated requirements are made out against the present applicant is again a matter for the proceedings. Admittedly, this the first offence, which is registered against the present applicant, and therefore, under section 108, the applicable punishment will be one year. 9. Taking into consideration these legal aspects, and for the present purpose, the liquor and vehicle which have already been seized, the applicant is no longer required in police custody and no criminal antecedents are against the present applicant. The investigation can definitely continue even after the release of the present applicant. The fact that other accused persons are absconding and they have not been 5 of 6 RB42BA1717-26 arrested does not, by itself, requires that the applicant continue to be in detention. Having regard to his individual role as it presently emerges from the prosecution material, the period of custody that he has already undergone from 17.07.2026 and the punishment prescribed for the offences actually invoked, his presence and cooperation can be secured by conditions. I am, therefore, inclined to grant the bail to the present Applicant. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The Applicant, in connection with with Crime No. 244 of 2026 registered with Mhasavad Police Station District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 65(e), 108 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/-( Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two sureties of the like amount. (iii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station on 1st Monday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till filing of the charge-sheet and thereafter once in a month, till framing of charge. (iv) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner. ( HITEN S. VENEGAONKAR, J.) JPChavan 6 of 6