922-ABA-1325-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 922 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1325 OF 2026 Alimoddin Khamroddin Khatib Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Another Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondents CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J DATE :SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 P. C. : 1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No. 469/2026 registered with Police Station Nanalpeth, District Parbhani for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 223, 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act. 2. First information report indicates that on the basis of the secret information received, raid was conducted on Varad Laxmi Provision (Kirana Store) belonging to co-accused Amil. From the said premises, contraband Gutka and Pan Masala worth Rs.14,908/- was seized. On the basis of statement of co-accused at the time of said raid, involvement of the Applicant is sought in the crime. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicability of offence punishable under Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code) is subject matter of decision before 2026:BHC-AUG:44233 922-ABA-1325-2026.odt the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is his submission that save and except alleged statement of co-accused, there is no evidence to connect Applicant with the crime in question. He also argued that since the entire contraband already been seized, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary. 4. Learned APP opposed grant of any relief to the Applicant by referring to the fact that previously similar offence has been registered against Applicant. She drew attention of the Court to the investigation papers, which indicates statement of witnesses so also the CDR indicating the nexus between the present Applicant and co-accused. According to her, for the purpose of finding out the source of contraband, since manufacturing of contraband is banned in the State of Maharashtra, his custodial interrogation is necessary. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the Applicant has one more similar complaint against him and in connection with the said crime, he is on bail. It would have been a different case if there was no evidence but for the statement of co-accused to accept involvement of the Applicant in this crime. Perusal of the investigation papers indicates that there is statement of witness who confirms the fact with regard to transaction between present Applicant and co-accused. Apart from this, there is evidence in the form of CDR showing close connection of the Applicant with co-accused including calls on next date of the lodging of the FIR too. Apart 922-ABA-1325-2026.odt from this, this Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP that in this backdrop, investigating agency is justified in seeking custody of the Applicant is order to ascertain source of the contraband. 6. In view of above, Anticipatory Bail Application stands rejected. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani