Vishalkumar Vijaybhai Panchal vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. It reasoned that the applicant was not the owner of the tobacco nor the proprietor of the company. The transporter's statement supported the contention that the tobacco was loaded for transport to Chhattisgarh. The Court noted that the interception occurred on National Highway 6, which was the shortest route to Chhattisgarh. In the absence of concrete evidence directly linking the applicant to the alleged tobacco, the Court found it inappropriate to deny him anticipatory bail. The Court confirmed the interim protection previously granted to the applicant on the same terms and conditions. The issue regarding the applicability of Section 328 of the IPC was noted as being seized by the Supreme Court, with interim protection granted to parties there.

Facts

The applicant, Vishalkumar Vijaybhai Panchal, sought anticipatory bail. He claims to be an employee of Ekta Enterprises, Vapi, Gujarat, and denies being its proprietor. He stated he was following his employer's orders to load 108 parcels of tobacco for delivery in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The truck was intercepted by police in Maharashtra while en route via National Highway 6. The applicant asserted that tax invoices indicated the goods were destined for Raipur, not Maharashtra, and that the police prevented him from producing them. He argued that the prosecution lacked evidence of tobacco being prohibited in Maharashtra and that Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code was inapplicable, an issue pending before the Supreme Court. The prosecution contended there was prima facie material against the applicant as a supplier of prohibited tobacco, citing statements from a warehouse owner and transporter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, as an employee transporting goods through Maharashtra to another state, can be held liable for the alleged possession of prohibited tobacco, particularly when the goods were destined for Chhattisgarh and not intended for offloading in Maharashtra? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of relevant penal and GST provisions). Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is merely an employee and not the owner or proprietor of the business. - The goods were intended for inter-state transport to Chhattisgarh, not for consumption or offloading in Maharashtra. - Tax invoices support the inter-state nature of the transaction. - Section 328 of the IPC is not applicable, and this issue is sub-judice before the Supreme Court. - There is no concrete evidence linking the applicant to the alleged tobacco. Revenue/State's Arguments: - Prima facie material exists against the applicant, indicating his involvement as a supplier of prohibited tobacco. - Statements from the warehouse owner and transporter support the applicant's involvement. - The investigating agency seeks to ascertain the frequency of such transfers through Maharashtra.