Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anil Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2019

         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC-32432-2019
              (ANIL SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)




Gwalior, Dated : 02.08.2019

      Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State.

Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.187/2019 registered at Police Station- Umri, District- Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 13(2) of M.P. Public Distribution Act, 2015 and section 409 of I.P.C.

Prosecution story, in short, is that the complainant- Sunil Mudgal, Junior Supply Officer has made a written complaint to the police stating therein that the transporter of M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation M/s Shukla Enterprises along with his employees and salesman of the fair price shop along with Manager of co-operative societies have misappropriated the ration of June, The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-32432-2019 (ANIL SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2019 which was to be delivered to the fair price shop. On the basis of above, crime has been registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he is not concerned with the case directly or indirectly. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that specific allegation has not been levelled against the applicant. It is on his information with regard to non-supply of food, complaint has been got lodged against the applicant. The offence under 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is bailable in nature. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is Assistant Secretary aged about 49 years and he is the permanent resident of District- Bhind. There is no likelihood of his absconsion, if he is granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for anticipatory bail is made.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-32432-2019 (ANIL SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant but with certain stringent conditions.

It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two local solvent sureties each of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by applicant:-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-32432-2019 (ANIL SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge Monika MONIKA SHARMA 2019.08.02 18:05:44 +05'30'