Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arun Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2020

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                  1

              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                      MCRC-11844-2020
            (ARUN UPADHYAY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)




Gwalior, Dated :    19-03-2020

      Shri R.B.S. Tomar, counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Ankit Saxena, Public Prosecutor for the State.

      Case Diary is perused.

      Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

      The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439 of

Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on

18.02.2020 by Police Station Porsa District Morena in connection

with Crime No.56/2020 registered in relation to the offence

punishable under Sections 420, , , 120-B of IPC read with

Sections 51, ,  of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (For

brevity "Act of 2006").

      As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the

applicant in short is that he was found storing material in the

godown namely maltodextrin powder, dry skimmed milk powder

and some liquid and RM chemical.

      Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

a reputed citizen aged 40 years who has no criminal past alleged

against him and he has been falsely implicated in the matter. The

applicant is in custody since 18.02.2020 without any substantial

reason. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the

applicant that the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out
                                    2

since he has not cheated any individual person. Moreover, the act of

the applicant is only for storing the food adulterated articles and

chemicals and not producing the adulterated food products and the

act for storing the adulterated materials are punishable under the

Act of 2006. However, for that purpose, offence under Sections 272,

 of IPC as well as under Sections 51,  and  of the Food

Safety and Standards Act, 2006 have already been levelled against

the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance

on the order dated 03.02.2010 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.

8629/2009 (Banshilal Agrawal Vs. State of M.P.) in support of his

contention. There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering

with the evidence, if he is released on bail. The applicant is ready to

abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this

Court. Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the

applicant.

      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

for grant of bail is made out. It is also submitted that the

investigation is pending and co-accused is absconding. In such

circumstances, the applicant may not be released on bail.

      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without

commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the

considered view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly,
                                             3

       the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be

       released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

       Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent

       surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial

       Court.

             This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the

       following conditions by the 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 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.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Abhi ASHISH CHAURASIA 2020.03.20 16:20:59 +05'30'