Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramjidas Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-27886-2019
(RAMJIDAS YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated: 12.07.2019
Shri R.K. Sharma, senior Advocate with Shri Harshad
Bahirani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kshitiz Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
This is the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.303/2019 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 407, 409, 120-B of I.P.C. and under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the offence for which Crime No.303/2019 has been registered under the provisions of 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is bailable. He submits that this aspect has not been considered by the learned trial Court.
In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is of the view that anticipatory bail is not maintainable in this case. As the alleged offence is bailable.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Annexure A/4 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2914/2015 vide judgment dated 07.05.2015 (Santosh Sahare Vs. State of M.P.) order of coordinate The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-27886-2019 (RAMJIDAS YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Bench of this Court has held that the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is a bailable offence.
Section 438(1) of Cr.P.C. Provides that, when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail and that Court may after taking into consideration the relevant factors either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim-order for the grant of anticipatory bail.
In the light of above, as the alleged offence is bailable offence, therefore, application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in this case. Hence, the application is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Monika MONIKA SHARMA 2019.07.16 12:10:48 +05'30'