Order 220926aba798.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [ABA] NO.798/2026. Shaikh Yusuf Shaikh Babbu -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri V.S. Gokhale, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri A.M. Kadukar, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR , J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.423/2026 registered with Badnera Police Station, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Section 318[4] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. 3. The first information report came to be lodged by Nitin Thakre, authorized by Tark Detective Company, Mumbai alleging that his Company has been engaged by Ultratech Cements for conducting investigation in the matters relating to manufacturing of substandard cement using name Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:12678 Order 220926aba798.26 2 and logo of Ultratech Cement and selling the same in the open market. Accordingly on 21.07.2026 a complaint was lodged with the police station that at Anjangaonbari that substandard cement is being manufactured, packed and sold under the name of Ultratech cement. Raid was conducted and on the spot some cement bags, unfit for consutrction purpose were found on which Ultratech and Super Ultratech Cement logo was printed, were seized and applicant was arrested from the spot. Hence, the report. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, since entire material is seized from the spot. Allegations against him is of storing substandard cement, however, he submits that the premises where cement was stored belongs to another person who has not been made accused. It is also alleged by the investigating agency that substandard cement belongs to the applicant and he used to pack the same in the bags containing logo of Ultratech Cement Company and would sell the same in the open market. However, according to the learned Counsel the applicant was not found on the spot, therefore, there is no link, so far as the applicant is concerned, and in such circumstances, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Rgd. Order 220926aba798.26 3 5. The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application by submitting that the first information report was registered by Nitin Thakre, Investigating Officer of Tark Detective Company, who was authorized to lodge first information report. He submits that the first information report discloses that Aditya Birla Group has entered into an agreement with Tark Detective Company to find out manufacturing and sale of substandard cement, and they were also authorized to lodge first information report in that regard. He further submits that the officials from Tark Company had been to the police station and informed them that they have received information that at Anjangaonbari some persons are selling substandard cement in the name of Ultratech Cement. Accordingly the police along with experts went to the spot and found huge quantity of gunny bags of Ultratech and Super Ultratech cement there. In about 800 bags Ultratech substandard and 145 bags Super Ultratech substandard cement was found, accordingly panchnama was drawn. Learned A.P.P. further submits that co-accused namely Irshad was found on the spot where entire material was stored, and some loose cement was also there on the spot. He further submits that the applicant arrived there and stated that the entire material belonged to him. It is contended that the Rgd. Order 220926aba798.26 4 applicant did not cooperate with the investigation, inspite of Section 35[3] notice issued to him. According to the learned A.P.P. during investigation, two statements were recorded. In the statement of witness looking after the agricultural field, he has specifically and categorically stated that the applicant is involved in carrying the business from the spot. The second statement is of owner of the field, which discloses that he has given that agricultural field to the adjacent owner Sushil for cultivation in the ratio of 50:50. and therefore, there is direct material against the applicant. He further submits that similar offence is already registered against the applicant and Irshad (who was found on the spot). It is further submitted that registration of the earlier offence has not been disclosed by the applicant and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Zeba Khan .vrs. State of U.P. (2026 AIR SC 1006), it was mandatory for the applicant to disclose the criminal antecedents, therefore, the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands, and in order to obtain favourable order, has suppressed the same. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail, since he has not complied with Section 35[3] notice and so also there is more than sufficient material against him. Rgd. Order 220926aba798.26 5 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the material placed on record. The first information report came to be lodged on 21.07.2026 by Nitin Thakre, authorised officer on behalf of Tark Company. It further appears that when the premises were raided, at that time co-accused Irshad was present. From the spot, several cement bags along with substandard cement having logo of Ultratech and Super Ultratech were seized. It is to be noted that the applicant does not possess any agency for selling the cement of said Company, in such circumstances, no explanation is tendered regarding such huge quantity cement bags stored by him. Prima facie officials from the Company are of the opinion that the accused persons are engaged in the business of sale of substandard cement. Further it could be gathered from the first information report itself that on the similar set of facts another crime was registered against the applicant and co-accused Irshad. 7. As regards the non-disclosure of earlier crime which was registered against the applicant, the Supreme Court in the case of Zeba Khan (supra), has made it mandatory to disclose the criminal antecedents and coercive processes. However, in the present case the applicant has conveniently suppressed registration of the earlier offence, and has tried to Rgd. Order 220926aba798.26 6 obtain favourable order, by specifically stating in his application that there are no criminal antecedents against him. Therefore, the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands and intentionally suppressed the earlier offence which was registered against him, leveling similar type of allegations. 8. At this juncture it is relevant to mention that the effect of the substandard cement manufactured and sold by the applicant will be revealed in near future, as the buildings, bridges, flyovers, etc., in which such the substandard cement would be used for construction, would collapse, and it would result in taking life of several innocent pupils therefore, this offence cannot be termed as a simple one, but, it is a serious crime committed against the public at large, and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Criminal Application is therefore, rejected. 9. Misc. Applications, if any, also stands disposed of. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 24/09/2026 16:39:15