Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 10 July, 2018
1 MCRC-24457-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-24457-2018
(VISHNU SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
2
Gwalior, Dated : 10-07-2018
Shri Arun Kumar Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
This second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant Vishnu Singh S/o Harjeevan Singh.
Crime No.1/2017 has been registered at Police Station Malanpur, District Bhind. Initially F.I.R. was lodged under the provisions of Section 41(1-4), 102 of Cr.P.C. and Section 379 of IPC.
It is submitted that maximum sentence for an offence under Section 379 of IPC is three years, therefore, it was mandatory for the Investigating Officer to have filed charge-sheet within a period of 60 days. Charge-sheet was not filed within sixty days and, therefore, applicant had become eligible for grant of bail under the provisions of Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. Later on, with a view to save his own skin, Investigating Officer added Section 413 of IPC on 07.03.2018 after Court timings were over. Since in a case where an accused has been charged under Section 413 of IPC, charge-sheet is to be filed within ninety days, therefore, bail has been refused to him.
It is submitted that no charge under Section 413 of IPC is made out, inasmuch as Section 413 of IPC deals with persons who are habitually dealing in stolen property. It is submitted that it is an aggravated form of Section411 of IPC where the basic ingredients is receiving of stolen property. It is submitted that these ingredients are not available and, therefore, no case is made out for charging the applicant under Section 413 of IPC.
A bare perusal of the case diary reveals that several motorcycles have been confiscated from the possession of the petitioner and co- accused Raj Kumar. They have admitted of their guilt and receiving such stolen motorcycles in a memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The essential ingredients of Section 411 of IPC are:
(i) that some property was stolen;
(ii) that the accused received or retained such property;
(iii) that the accused received or retained it dishonestly;
(iv) that the accused did so knowingly or having reason to believe 2 MCRC-24457-2018 that such property was stolen.
On the other hand, Section 379 of IPC deals with punishment for theft. Theft is defined under Section 378 IPC. The essential ingredients of an offence under Section 379 are as under:-
(i) dishonest intention to take property;
(ii) the property must be movable;
(iii) it should be taken out of the possession of another person;
(iv) it should be taken without the consent of that person; and
(v) there must be some moving of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it.
Thus, as far as the act of the petitioner in presentil is concerned prima facie offence will be under Section 379 IPC but as soon as recovery is shown of the stolen property which was subject matter of other cases and was retrieved from the possession of the accused, then essential ingredients of Section 411 of IPC will be attracted and thus it cannot be said that no case under Section 413 of IPC is made out.
Looking to the nature of offence and the quantity of the stolen property seized from the petitioner and co-accused it cannot be said that petitioner is a first timer innocent person but appears to be a professional and, therefore, it is not a fit case to enlarge him on bail at this state when there is sufficient material to support apprehension of the prosecution that if petitioner is enlarged on bail then he may again indulge him crime.
Thus, the petition is fails and dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE mani SUBASRI MANI 2018.07.16 16:04:40 +05'30'