Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raksha Raghuvansi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 November, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
M.Cr.C. No. 57521/2021
( Raksha Raghuvanshi & another Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh )
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 25/11/2021
Shri Rishikesh Bohare, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rohit Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General for
the respondent-state
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicants have filed this first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.646/2021 registered at Police Station- Dehat District Ashoknagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Prosecution story in short is that complainant Junior Supply Officer Ishagarh made inspection at the Fair Price Shop situated at village Bamuria where shop was found open and distribution of food stuffs was being made but the applicant-salesman Raksha Raghuvanshi and Manager/applicant Guddibai were absent from shop, said shop was being run under the presence of Rajkumar Raghuvanshi who is husband of Manager-applicant Guddibai. At the time of inspection stock register, supply register were not available at shop and therefore physical verification could not be done and other irregularities were also found. On the aforesaid basis, crime has been registered.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 57521/2021 ( Raksha Raghuvanshi & another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ) (2) Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 07.05.2015 passed in M.Cr.C No. 2914/2015 (Santosh Sahare Vs. State of M.P.) by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein under similar circumstances it has been held as under:-
"5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the aforesaid submission on the ground that there is prima-facie evidence available against the applicant and prays for dismissing the same.
6. Firstly, I would like to reproduce the relevant provision of Act of 1955 to clear the position as to whether offence under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is bailable or non-bailable.
7. Section 10(A) of the Act of 1955 reads as under:-
"Offence to be cognizable and bailable notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 every offence punishable under the Act shall be 'cognizable' "(xxx)2.
(xxx)2 - vf/kfu;e dz- 92 lu 1976 }kjk nl o"kksZa ds fy, rRi'pkr~ vf/kfu;e dz- 18 lu~ 1981 }kjk ¼fn- 1-9-1982 ls½ nl ds LFkku ij iUnzg o"kksZa ds fy,] 'kCn ^^vkSj vtekurh;^^ LFkkfir fd;s x, Fks A fn-31-8-1997 dks iUnzg o"kZ iw.kZ gks tkus ds dkj.k /kkjk vius ewy :i esa LFkkfirA^^
8. From the bare perusal of aforesaid section it appears that by the Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Act-1981 Section 10(A) of the original Act of 1955 was amended and after the word 'cognizable', the words 'and non-
bailable' were introduced. The said Act of 1981 was to remain in force for a period of 5 years only from the date of commencement of 1981 Act. Thereafter by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Continuance Act, 1987 para-2 of the preamble of 1981 to the Essential HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 57521/2021 ( Raksha Raghuvanshi & another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ) (3) Commodities (Special Provisions) Act,1981 was amended and in place of 5 years, period of 10 years was substituted. Thereafter by Third Amendment, the said period of continuance was made to 15 years. After expiry of 15 years no amendment Act was brought into force but certain ordinance were issued. The last ordinance was issued in the year 1988, which lost its life and efficacy by lapse of time. Thereafter no Act or ordinance has been issued to continue the Provisions of 1981 Act.
9. When 1981 Act has lost its life, then any amendment incorporated by the said Act which was to remain in force for a period of 5,10 or 15 years would come to an end and additional words 'and non-bailable' shall become 'non- est' and 'otiose' Section 10(A) without the said amendment shall now be read as "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure- 1973, every offence punishable under the Act shall be cognizable"
10. In view of the above legal provisions, the offence is not nonbailable. Cognizance of such an offence can be taken but in the absence of any other provision showing the offence to be nonbailable, The offence would continue to be bailable in view of schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.
11. Therefore, as the offence is bailable, an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. However, keeping in view the relevant provision as well as the possibility of the non- wareness of the relevant provisions of Act of 1955 and amended Act,1981 and the interpretation, it would be appropriate to direct the Arresting Officer/Authority that in the event of arrest of applicant, the officer arresting the applicant shall release the applicant Santosh Sahare on bail treating the offence to be bailable. In the alternative, the applicant may also appear before the Special Court along with the copy of this order and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the said Court.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 57521/2021 ( Raksha Raghuvanshi & another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ) (4)
12. The petition is disposed of accordingly."
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are lady and innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is bailable. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that in view of COVID-19 outbreak, detention of applicant in already congested prisons may be detrimental. It is submitted that applicants are permanent resident of District Ashoknagar (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. They are ready to cooperate in the investigation. With the aforesaid submissions prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made.
In response, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the anticipatory bail application and prays for its rejection.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
The application is, accordingly, allowed and it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of applicants namely Raksha Raghuvanshi and Guddibai, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one local solvent surety in the like amount to the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 57521/2021 ( Raksha Raghuvanshi & another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ) (5) satisfaction of Arresting Authority.
The applicants shall also furnish a written undertaking that they will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of Corona virus.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants:-
1. The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;
2. The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicants will not indulge in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
5. The applicants will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
6. If the applicants commits any offence while being on anticipatory bail, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to the Court.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. Certified copy as per rules.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge Prachi* PRACHI MISHRA 2021.11.25 17:37:28 +05'30'