Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijendra Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 17 November, 2017
(Brijendra Singh Parmar Vs. State of M.P.)
1 M.Cr.C. No.21445/2017
17/11/2017
Shri Sanjay Bahirani, counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.K. Awasthy, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 348/2017 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Datia for the offence punishable under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and section 409 of the IPC.
As per prosecution story, on 21/08/2017, the Civil Supply Officer along with Smt. Swati Gupta, Patwari had inspected the fair price shop of the applicant's society and while inspection it was found that fair price shop was closed, so it was sealed. Inspecting Authority directed the accused to produce the record. The shop was unlocked and stock was verified. It was found that four quintal of wheat, three quintal of rice and 1200 litres of kerosene was seized. Panchanama was prepared and statements of the villagers were recorded, who stated that they did not receive food article and kerosene in the month of August and it was also stated that the shop was not opened regularly. Allegations have been levelled against the applicant and co-accused that they have misappropriated the said quantity which amounts to violation of PDS order 2015 and the same is punishable under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities (Brijendra Singh Parmar Vs. State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.C. No.21445/2017 Act and subsequently section 409 of IPC was added to make it non-bailable.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is aged 28 years, who has no criminal past alleged against him. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for offence punishable under section 409 of IPC the prosecution has to prove prima facie that property has been "entrusted" to the applicant in the capacity of public servant. In the instant case, there is nothing in the FIR to show that some property was entrusted to the applicant. The applicant is not a public servant. The goods are purchased by the applicant and thereafter sold it, therefore there is no question of "entrusting" public property to the applicant. The essential ingredients of offence under section 409 of IPC are not revealed from the FIR. Applicant is permanent resident of the Dist. Datia and there are no chances of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He shall abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.
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 anticipatory bail is made out.
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 (Brijendra Singh Parmar Vs. State of M.P.) 3 M.Cr.C. No.21445/2017 extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by applicant:
1. He will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. He will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. He 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. He shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. He will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. He will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* SANJAY N. Digitally signed by SANJAY N. DURGEKAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P. S., DURGEKA postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=afa4701a2661e1fb7720c022f R fc277608ce55ba67f3594a641181b9ae 8448e58, cn=SANJAY N. DURGEKAR Date: 2017.11.18 16:39:10 +05'30'