1 28 ABA 834.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.834/2026 (Vivek S/o Arun Maske Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. G. D. Dani, Advocate for applicant. Mr. H. D. Marathe, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 06/10/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.639/2026 registered with Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 275, 274, 223, 123, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 26(1), 26(2)(iv), 27(3) (e), 30(2)(a), 3(1)(zz)(iv), 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that in the intervening night of 04/09/2026 and 05/09/2026, the Food Safety Officer- Kiran Rangswami Gedam raided the house of one Komal Tidke who is co-accused in the said crime and found that the contraband prohibited in the State of Maharashtra comprising of scented tobacco packets and pan masala of different brands worth 2 28 ABA 834.26 Rs.1,34,470/- were stored in his house. The raiding party seized the entire material alongwith the motorcycle of co- accused Komal. Based on this, the first information report was registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused Komal Tidake, the applicant has been implicated in the crime. The allegations against the applicant are that the applicant has supplied the prohibited articles to the accused who was apprehended on the spot, when the raid was conducted. The reply of the prosecution shows that there were calls between the applicant and the co-accused. However, he submits that the applicant has never supplied the said goods. There are no criminal antecedents against the applicant to show that the applicant is indulged in the business of supplying prohibited articles. Under such circumstances, he submits that merely on the basis of the Call Detail Report (“CDR”) and the confessional statement of the co-accused, the applicant cannot be said to be involved in the crime therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail. 3 28 ABA 834.26 5. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that during the preceding period of six months, there are more than 200 calls between the applicant and the co-accused namely Komal. Huge quantity of pan masala and scented tobacco were seized from the house of co-accused during the raid. During investigation, the name of the applicant surfaced and therefore he submits that it is the applicant who has supplied the prohibited articles to the co-accused - Komal. Under such circumstances, he submits that the custodial interrogation of the applicant would be necessary considering the fact that the applicant has committed serious offence and the co-accused has taken his name therefore, he prays to reject the application. 6. Upon consideration of submissions of both sides, it appears that at present, there are only two circumstances against the applicant i.e. confessional statement of co- accused and the CDR stating that there are more than 200 calls between the applicant and the co-accused in the preceding six month period. Apart from that, there is no cogent material in order to show that it is the applicant who has supplied the said prohibited articles. It is necessary to mention at this juncture that before 4 28 ABA 834.26 registration of the present FIR, there are no other similar type of offences registered against the applicant. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult to believe that it is the applicant who has supplied the prohibited articles to the co-accused. Considering the nature of the allegations, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant hence the following orders:- ORDER (I) Application is allowed and disposed of. (II) In the event of arrest, the applicant Vivek S/o Arun Maske be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.639/2026 registered with Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 275, 274, 223, 123, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 26(1), 26(2)(iv), 27(3)(e), 30(2)(a), 3(1)(zz)(iv), 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. (III) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 11.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. or as and when called by the Investigating Officer. (IV) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. (V) The applicant shall not indulge in similar type of offence. 5 28 ABA 834.26 7. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. 8. The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observation. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/10/2026 19:20:44