Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lucky Rohra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2022
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 27th OF JUNE, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27558 of 2022
Between:-
LUCKY ROHRA S/O PARMANAND ROHRA ,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RICE
MILLER R/O BEHIND DIMOND SCHOOL, CARIN
LINE, MADHAV NAGAR, KATNI (M.P.)OLD
ADDRESS ROBERI LINE MADHAV NAGAR
KATNI, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NAMAN NAGRATH - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
KABEER PAUL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE
STATION MADHAVNAGAR DISTRICT KATNI
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S. BAGEHL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application has come up for hearing on this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This i s first bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.86/2022, registered at Police Station-Madhavnagar, District-Katni (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 407 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned senior counsel appearing for applicant submitted that applicant had deposited in advance an amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- as security. Applicant 2 has to lift the material/paddy till 05.02.2022. Paddy never reached to petitioner. In delivery Challan also Truck number, signature of receiver, quantity etc. had not been mentioned. Since, applicant had not received the paddy which is said to have been sent to applicant, therefore, no case under Section 420, 407 and 409 of the Indian Panel Code is made out against the applicant. Moreover, the delivery which has been sent to applicant has already been secured by paying advance amount, therefore, no loss has been caused to State Government. In this circumstances, applicant be granted anticipatory bail.
Learned Government Advocate appearing for State opposed the bail application for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted by him that applicant had received the paddy to be delivered to him and later, on inspection at his premises, no paddy was found. This shows that paddy has been redirected to some other place and said paddy will be replaced by some inferior quality of rice, which is causing wrongful gain to the applicant and wrongful loss to the State Government. Applicant has committed offence under Sections 420, 407 and 409 of the Indian Panel Code. Investigation is incomplete and applicant will be required for investigation of case. In view of same, application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by applicant may be dismissed.
Heard the counsel for applicant as well as State.
As per prosecution case, on 04.02.2022, a letter was written to Proprietor of Siyaram Industries. 22 hours notice was given to proprietor of Siyaram Industries to open mill premises for physical verification of paddy. Despite receiving notice, proprietor was not present and, therefore, another notice was affixed on the mill gate. On 14.02.2022, seal of gate was removed in presence of representative of Company and mill was inspected. Paddy which was received from requisition center, Ubra and requisition center, Hadarhata was not 3 found stored in mill premises. 4763 quintal of paddy was found missing. Paddy has to be stored in mill premises. Applicant is said to have caused loss of Rs.92,40,220/- to the State Government.
Applicant could not account for paddy measuring 4763 quintal. In view of same, offence under Section 409 of the Indian Panel Code appears to be made out as he has been entrusted paddy crops worth 4763 quintal. However, no offence under Section 420 of the IPC appears to be made out as substandard rice after milling has not been supplied to State Government. At this stage, it cannot be said that offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against applicant. Offence under Section 409 of the IPC is punishable with 10 years of imprisonment.
As per delivery order dated 02.02.2022, some person has signed for miller. Who had signed in delivery order is not clear. If paddy is not delivered at mill of Siyaram Industries then miller has to lodge a complaint regarding nondelivery of paddy. No complaint has been lodged for nondelivery of paddy and Proprietor Lucky Rohra did not join in investigation or appear before the Investigation Team. On the contrary, accused person remained absconding. Police has to initiate proceeding under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., however, no order has been passed declaring applicant to be proclaimed offender. If applicant has not received paddy then there was no reason for him to remain absconding and not to appear before authority. In view of same, ground raised by applicant regarding nondelivery of paddy cannot be accepted at this stage. Anticipatory bail application filed by applicant, is dismissed.
Applicant was granted interim protection by this Court on 17.06.2022. He is directed to surrender before trial Court or Investigating Officer and cooperate 4 in investigation of the case.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE SHABANA ANSARI shabana Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=4bc06f2e678b75148b60bb7947ee9ffc5ed27ef1f43a5d4d93d2d13dda510735, pseudonym=B646F86821C200C9792A53984F1D0790135DE39A, serialNumber=8A5E15A33816E651B4DB52BF3225281EF6C191F68E5EBE90A6E101CF42422711, cn=SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2022.06.29 15:21:15 +05'30'