RUSHIKESH UTTAM PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:42967
                                                                      RB42BA1717-26

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1717 of 2026

                  Rushikesh Uttam Patil,                   ...       Applicant
                  Age 32 years, Occu: Business
                  R/o Hari Om Nagar Shahad, Tq. Shahada
                  Dist. Nandurbar (presently in Magistrate
                  custody)

                  VERSUS

                  The State of Maharashtra                     … Respondent
                  Through Officer Incharge of Mhasavad
                  Police Station,Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar.
                                              .....
            Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant
            Mrs Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent State

                                   CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAONKAR, J.
                                       DATE: 21st September, 2026
            ORDER:-

            1.        Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP

            for the State.



            2.        By the present application, the applicant is seeking regular

            bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

            2023 in connection with Crime No. 244 of 2026 registered with

            Mhasavad Police Station District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable

            under Sections 65(e), 108 of      the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and

            Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.


            3.        The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the basis of source

            information about unauthorized storage and transportation of liquor,


                                                                                 1 of 6
                                                           RB42BA1717-26


the police conducted raid in the premises of Hari Om Fiber Pvt. Ltd. on

09.07.2026. In the said raid, they found a large quantity of liquor in

the godown and in the vehicles at the premises. The seizer, including

the vehicles, is valued in the FIR approximately at Rs. Four Crores and

three persons were found and arrested on the spot. The investigation

proceeded    and during investigation, involvement of several other

accused persons was noticed and, therefore, the offence became inter

State operation.


4.       The present applicant came to be arrested in connection with

the alleged offence on 17.07.2026 and since then, he is in custody.

According to the prosecution, the allegations against the present

applicant are that he is in control and possession/ownership of the

premises in which the alleged liquor was found. The second allegation

against the present applicant is that the present applicant had

permitted to co-accused Sattar Mohan Thakre to use the said premises

and have supplied the key of the said premises for the purpose of

access. It is also an allegation that against the use of the said premises,

the present applicant was to receive the proceeds from the said offence.

The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the

applicant was neither present at the time of raid nor he is named in

the FIR. The implication of the present applicant is followed by the

discovery that his name appeared in the property record. The another

important limb of the argument of the learned Advocate for the

applicant is that the premises in which the alleged liquor was found


                                                                      2 of 6
                                                          RB42BA1717-26


had been the subject matter of the              proceedings under the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

of Security Interest Act, and pursuant to those proceedings, the

premises have already been taken into possession by the State Bank of

India in the month of April, 2024. He, thus, submits that the applicant

cannot be said to be the owner and possessor of the said premises and

even otherwise his     argument is that the ownership alone cannot

establish the knowledge of the liquor stored in the premises.            He

submitted that the articles have already been seized and the present

applicant has no criminal antecedents. He, thus, argues that merely

because the premises in which the alleged liquor was stored belongs to

the present applicant, he cannot be said to be a member           of     an

organized crime as required under the provisions of Section 111 of the

BNS.    Absence of criminal antecedents against the present applicant

also justifies, according the learned counsel, that he is neither a

member of syndicate nor he is involved in any continuing unlawful

activity which are the main ingredients to attract section 111 of the

BNS. He, thus, submits that        taking into consideration that the

applicant has been in jail since 17.07. 2026, his bail application be

considered and he be released on bail.


5.       The learned APP, however strongly objects and opposes the

bail applicant. She relies on the scale of the seizure, the alleged use of

the applicant’s premises and the prosecution’s assertion that he

knowingly made them available for the activity. She submits that the


                                                                       3 of 6
                                                         RB42BA1717-26


source of movement of the liquor remains under investigation.         The

present applicant has been part of the syndicate         and the other

members of the said syndicate who are named in the present offence

are absconding. According to her, if the applicant is released on bail,

then he may obstruct the investigation or influence the witnesses.


6.       I have considered the submissions and papers of investigation

which have been relied upon by the learned APP.     The quantity seized

and the alleged use of several vehicles makes the accusation serious.

The applicant’s case cannot be assessed on the footing that the

ownership is the only allegation against him. The prosecution also

alleges permission to use the premises, delivery of the key and the

share in the proceeds. Equally, the Bank’s possession notice does not,

without more, establish that the applicant had lost physical access to or

control over the said property. Perusal of the Bank’s possession notice,

which is annexed to the present application, suggest that the physical

possession was with the present applicant and it was only a symbolic

possession that was taken by the Bank.


7.       The question whether the applicant participated in the activity

must be determined at the time of trial. The document shows that the

investigation is in progress and even chemical analyzer’s report of the

seized liquor is awaited. Taking into consideration the offences alleged

against the present applicant, Section 65(e) of the BNS provides for

imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine,

or with both. Though Section 111 of the BNS provides for punishment

                                                                     4 of 6
                                                          RB42BA1717-26


which may extend to imprisonment for life, the said section, in itself

contains certain essential ingredients which need to be satisfied.

Section 111 attracts only in a situation where there is continuing

unlawful activity and the person who has been alleged under section

111 is found to be a member of the syndicate. Presently, at least before

this court, the prosecution has not produced any material              to

demonstrate that these ingredients are satisfied against the present

applicant. On the contrary, it is an admitted position that there are no

criminal antecedents against the present applicant.


8.       Even attraction of Section 108 of the Maharashtra Prohibition

Act, which concerns a person holding a licence, permit, pass or

authorization who deals in an intoxicant without payment of prescribed

duty or fees, attracts punishment which varies with the number of

offences. Whether its stated requirements are made out against the

present applicant is again a matter for the proceedings. Admittedly, this

the first offence, which is registered against the present applicant, and

therefore, under section 108, the applicable punishment will be one

year.


9.       Taking into consideration these legal aspects, and for the

present purpose, the liquor and vehicle which have already been seized,

the applicant is no longer required in police custody and no criminal

antecedents are against the present applicant. The investigation can

definitely continue even after the release of the present applicant. The

fact that other accused persons are absconding and they have not been

                                                                    5 of 6
                                                                      RB42BA1717-26


           arrested does not, by itself, requires that the applicant continue to be in

           detention.      Having regard to his individual role      as it presently

           emerges from the prosecution material, the period of custody that he

           has already undergone from 17.07.2026 and the punishment

           prescribed for the offences actually invoked, his presence              and

           cooperation can be secured by conditions. I am, therefore, inclined to

           grant the bail to the present Applicant. Hence, the following order:-

                                            ORDER


           (i)   The Bail Application is allowed.

           (ii) The Applicant, in connection with with Crime No. 244 of 2026
                 registered with Mhasavad Police Station District Nandurbar,
                 for the offences punishable under Sections 65(e), 108 of the
                 Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Section 111 of Bhartiya
                 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 be released on bail on furnishing
                 personal bond of Rs.50,000/-( Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
                 with one or two sureties of the like amount.

           (iii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station on
                 1st Monday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00
                 noon till filing of the charge-sheet and thereafter once in a
                 month, till framing of charge.

           (iv) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses
                 and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any
                 manner.




                                                    ( HITEN S. VENEGAONKAR, J.)
JPChavan


                                                                                6 of 6