1 16. ABA 839 of 2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.839 OF 2026 ANIL KUMAR NAHATA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PSO, PS ANJANGAON, DIST. AMRAVATI Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. N.B Jawade, APP for Non-Applicant-State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATED : 14th OCTOBER 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. Apprehending arrest, the applicant has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.368 of 2026, registered with Police Station Anjangaon, Dist. Amravati Rural, for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 6(a), 7(b), 19 and 21 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Rule 10 of the Seeds Rules, 1968. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the applicant is the Managing Director of a Company, which manufacture, process and sale soyabean seeds. It is alleged that the soyabean seeds 2026:BHC-NAG:13897 2 16. ABA 839 of 2026.odt sold by the applicant failed to yield the crop causing economic loss to the farmers. Hence, the FIR was registered on 18.07.2026. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Managing Director of a company, which manufacture, process and sale soyabean seeds. It is alleged in the FIR that the soyabean seeds sold by the applicant did not yield crop causing loss to the farmers. He submits that so far as the provisions levelled against the applicant are concerned, those would not be applicable to the case and even if it is considered that Section 318(4) of BNS is applicable, still maximum punishment provided is upto seven years. So far as the provisions of the Seeds Act are concerned, maximum punishment provided is three months and therefore, he submits that the custodial interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary. Under such circumstances, the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that the investigation is at initial stage. He submits that it is not in dispute that the applicant was manufacturing, processing and selling seeds of soyabean. Further, he sold the said seeds to the dealers from whom the farmers have purchased. When it was sowed by the farmers, there was no germination. He submits that considering the serious nature of allegations and the fact that the seeds did not germinate, they could be termed as bogus seeds, which 3 16. ABA 839 of 2026.odt was manufactured by the applicant. He submits that due to the said fact, the farmers have suffered heavy losses and therefore, as the investigation is at initial stage and further investigation is going on, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides, apparently, it appears that the provisions invoked against the applicant are Section 318(4) of BNS, Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 6(a), 7(b), 19 and 21 of the Seeds Act and Rule 10 of the Seeds Rules. It is to be noted that, for all these offences, maximum punishment provided is upto seven years. It is to be further noted that so far as the allegations are concerned, from the first information report it could be gathered that the applicant is the Managing Director of the manufacturing company of soyabean seeds. It is further to be noted that there may have been many factors which may lead to non germination of seeds. However, it can be only concluded after full fledged investigation. So far as the applicability of Section 318(4) of BNS is concerned, it could be decided only after the full fledged investigation and not at this stage. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that maximum punishment provided for the offences registered against the applicant is upto seven years, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for grant of bail. Hence, the following order. 4 16. ABA 839 of 2026.odt ORDER i) The Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. ii) In the event of arrest, applicant viz. Anil Kumar Nahata, in connection with Crime No.368 of 2026, registered with Police Station Anjangaon, Dist. Amravati Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 6(a), 7(b), 19 and 21 of the Seeds Act, 1966 and Rule 10 of the Seeds Rules, 1968, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety each 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. and as and when called by the Investigating Officer. iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. v) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 7. 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 observations. (M.M. NERLIKAR, J.) asd