VISHNU SARJERAO DABHADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:40193
                                              1
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                      934 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1482 OF 2026

               Vishnu Sarjerao Dabhade                                  .. Applicant
                     Versus
               The State of Maharashtra                                 .. Respondent
                                                   …..
                     Shri. Chaitanya Rajesh Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicant
                           Shri. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the Respondent - State.
                                                   …..

                                             CORAM :      R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                             Dated    :   02nd SEPTEMBER, 2026

               PER COURT :-

               .     Crime No.317 of 2026 came to be registered with Karmad Police

               Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offence punishable

               under Sections 318 (4) r/w. Sec. 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

               2023, Sections 3, 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and

               Clauses 5, 7, 8, 12, 19 (C)(ii)(iv)(v) and 35 of the Fertilizer (Control)

               Order, 1985 against the Applicant and the Co-Accused. The Applicant is

               apprehending arrest in the aforesaid Crime and therefore, has filed this

               Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

               Sanhita, 2023 for Anticipatory Bail.



               2.    In short, it is the case of the Prosecution that, on 27.06.2026

               raid was conducted by the Fertilizer Inspector and Agricultural Officer,

               Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, at Om Krushi Seva Kendra, Ladsawangi. At

               that time, it was found that the record was not properly maintained. So
                                  2
also, the purchase vouchers were not provided by the present Applicant

who happens to be the owner of the said establishment.



3.    The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that, the Applicant

is the retailer of fertilizers and there is no allegation against him that he

manufactured any fertilizers. According to him, the applicant receives

supply from the licensed manufacturers of the fertilizer and if it is so,

question of selling any bogus fertilizers by the Applicant does not arise.

It is submitted that, at the most, the offence against the Applicant would

be to the extent of non-maintenance of the record. It is submitted that,

in respect of the said offence, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is

not necessary and that, direction to the Applicant to appear before the

Investigating Officer would serve the purpose of the Investigating

Agency.



4.    The learned APP opposed the Application by referring to the

allegations in the FIR. It is his contention that, the offence in itself is

serious in nature considering the allegations of the substandard quality

of fertilizers being sold by the Applicant. The learned APP submits that,

the record shows that, the applicant’s licence has expired and without

valid licence, he was selling the fertilizers.



5.    Prima facie, perusal of the record does not indicate any allegation

against the Applicant of manufacturing fertilizers. There is no dispute
                                3
about the fact that the Applicant is the retailer and he purchases the

fertilizers from the licensed manufacturers. Apparently, this Court,

therefore, finds substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for

the Applicant that, at the most, the offence against the Applicant would

be to the extent of non-maintenance of the record and for that purpose,

custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary. So far as

the submission of the learned APP that the record shows that the

Applicant’s licence had expired and that he was selling fertilizers

without valid licence is concerned, the same is opposed by the learned

Advocate for the Applicant, contending that the record indicates that

renewal of licence was sought by the Applicant.



6.     In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the Application with a

direction to the Applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer

which will be sufficient to meet the interest of investigation. Hence, the

following order.

                                    ORDER

(i)    The Application is allowed.


(ii)   In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime
No.317    of   2026,    registered    with   Karmad    Police   Station,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offence punishable under
Sections 318 (4) r/w. Sec. 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, Sections 3, 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and
Clauses 5, 7, 8, 12, 19 (C)(ii)(iv)(v) and 35 of the Fertilizer (Control)
                                 4
Order, 1985, he shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety
in the like amount.


(iii)   The applicant shall not contact the witnesses directly or
indirectly.


(iv)    The applicant shall not interfere with the evidence in any
manner whatsoever.


(v)     The applicant is directed to appear before the Investigating
Officer on 09.09.2026 and 11.09.2026 between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00
p.m.


(vi)    The applicant is further directed to cooperate the investigating
agency for further investigation.


7.      Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this
order to the concerned Police Station.




                                                     ( R. M. JOSHI, J. )

GGP