Madhya Pradesh High Court
Avinash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2015
M.Cr.C.No.11590/2015 ( Avinash Vs. State of M.P.) 1
11.12.2015
Shri A.R. Shivhare, Advocate, for the applicant.
Shri Rajendra Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/
State.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate, for the complainant.
Considered I.A.No.3547/15, an application for assisting the prosecution under Section 301 of Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the prosecution. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I.A.No.3547/15 is allowed.
Heard.
This is the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.387/15 registered at Police Station Gola Ka Mandir, district Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 322, 287, 352, 426, 447 of IPC read with Section 25 of Telegraph Act and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
It is alleged that a written application was submitted before the Police Station Gola Ka Mandir by Bharti M.Cr.C.No.11590/2015 ( Avinash Vs. State of M.P.) 2 Infratech Company Ltd stating that the applicant and other accused persons entered into the office, beaten the complainant and damaged the office. It is further alleged that during the course of investigation it is found that the accused persons and other colleagues have been disrupting services of the mobile towers throughout the State which resulted into loss to the mobile companies such as Rs.26,01,270 to Airtel, Rs.9,95,745 to Idea, Rs.5,77,800/- to Vodaphone. The total amount of loss is Rs. 42,44,815/-.
It is further submitted that the complainant has lodged similar report against the other accused persons in other districts.
On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that the applicant is an employee of Adecco India Private Ltd., who is the service provider to maintain the mobile towers. The applicant is appointed by Annexure A/3 and applicant has not been specifically alleged of doing any overt act. Applicant and other employees were having certain dispute with their employers. Because of which there was a protest and, therefore, the applicant and other employees were being retrenched. The applicant is not having any criminal record. Therefore, prayed for anticipatory bail.
M.Cr.C.No.11590/2015 ( Avinash Vs. State of M.P.) 3 Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application stating that the applicant and other employees have damaged the towers and because of which the service of communication has been affected badly.
On behalf of the complainant it is argued that the applicant and other accused persons with common object disrupted the communication service and damaged the public property. It is contended that communication has been given the centre stage in development of the Stage. Therefore, Notification of the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 27th March, 2012 and movable and immovable properties of the companies defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 have been included in the category of Public Property. The contravention of the provision of which is punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. It is further contended that if some type of disruption continues it may adversely affect the people at large.
Considered the above submissions.
Section 25 of Telegraphs Act and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 are non-bailable offences. Individual Act of the applicant has M.Cr.C.No.11590/2015 ( Avinash Vs. State of M.P.) 4 not been identified. Omnibus allegations have been made to class of people.
Keeping in view the seriousness of the disruption of communication services, with stringent conditions, the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant make himself present before the Arresting Officer within seven days from today and in the event of his arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.
(1). The applicant is directed to join the investigation immediately and to fully co-operate with the investigation. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. It is also directed that, (2) The applicant will not enter into the premises of the tower without the prior written permission of the Adecco Company. (3) The applicant is directed to mark his presence before the Police Station Gola Ka Mandir, Gwalior, in between 10 AM to 11 AM 10th day of every calender month till the charge-sheet is filed.
In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court M.Cr.C.No.11590/2015 ( Avinash Vs. State of M.P.) 5 in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others JT 2010 (13) SC 247, this order shall remain in force till the end of the trial. However, the applicant has to furnish a fresh bail bond and surety before the trial Court after the filing of challan.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. Palo)
mani Judge