Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 11 th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 61041 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUT S/O SHRI VISHWANATH
SINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SALESMAN IN ADIM JAT SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI
MYDT. RAHLI DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VISHNU CHANDRA DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S
RAHLI RAHLI DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is second bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of applicant Rajendra Singh Rajput S/o Shri Vishwanath Singh Rajput in connection with case crime no. 219/21 for offences punishable under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and 409 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station Rahli, District Sagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application Signature Not Verified (M.Cr.C. No. 357/2022) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated SAN Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR 18/01/2022. It is further submitted that the applicant was working as a Date: 2023.01.16 18:31:51 IST 'Salesman' in Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Rahli, District Sagar. It 2 is further submitted that the Collector was not authorized to lodge the F.I.R. There was transgression of the authority. Similarly, it is pointed out that there is violation of Clause 16 (3) of the Control Order 2015 inasmuch as, only in case of excess of 10% of monthly allocation being found to be misappropriated, prosecution could have been lodged and not otherwise for which other provisions are given in the Control Order.
Taking all these pleas, it is submitted that it is a fit case to extend anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned Government Advocate submits that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is already issued against the present applicant, therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 and Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of West Bengal (2005) 4 SCC 303, after issuance of proclamation under Section 82, the application under Section 438 is not maintainable.
Taking these facts into consideration and also the fact that petitioner is not in a position to dispute the factum of issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lavesh (supra) and Adridharan Das (supra), the application fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2023.01.16 18:31:51 IST