Santosh Dwarkadas v. State Of Maharashtra

S.B. Shukre, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the reply and case diary.

2. On going through the statements of Ashok, Manik and Santosh, prima facie, it is seen that that the applicant knew as to from where the food-grains were brought. Admittedly, the commodity belonged to the Government and apparently, there was no reason for the applicant to have accepted the delivery of the food-grain. There is also prima facie material showing involvement of the godown keeper in misappropriating the food-grains. Therefore, so far as this applicant is concerned, it would be a matter of investigation as to how much food-grain he has so far received knowing fully well that it was misappropriated by the main accused and it would be possible only after custodial interrogation of the applicant.

3. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Application is rejected.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant makes a request for extension of interim protection for a period of two weeks to enable the applicant to take appropriate decision regarding challenging this order or otherwise. Prayer is opposed by learned APP. However, since the applicant is on interim protection from 10 October 2016, interim protection is extended by a further period of two weeks from today.