Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Shyamnani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1 M.Cr.C.3039-2022 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH INDORE M.Cr.C. No. 3039 of 2022 ( RAJENDRA SHYAMNANI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESYH) Indore, Dated: 16 /02/2022 Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani, counsel for the applicant. Ms. Seema Maheshwari,counsel appearing on behalf of Additional Advocate General.
This is the applicant's first bail application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant is apprehending his/her arrest in connection with Crime No.663/2021 registered at Police Station- Azad Nagar, Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 3 / 7 of the Essential Commodities Act r/w 406, 420, 120-B of the IPC.
The allegations against the applicant are that he happens to be the proprietor of M/s Palak Agro Industries having its mill situated at Nemawar Road, Indore, which is involved in sorting and grading work of rice, where, on the basis of direction given by District Supply Control Indore a joint inspection team made its search in the and it was found that one loading vehicle bearing registration No. MP-09-LQ- 9735 was parked in the premises in which 34 rice bags were kept and 6 bags were lying on the ground, each weighing 50 kg. When inquired from the driver, it transpired that on the date of the incident, 40 bags of 2 M.Cr.C.3039-2022 rice from Public Distributors System (herein after referred as PDS) were agreed to be delivered through one Ayub Khan and statements of the owner of vehicle Shahnawaj Khan was also taken. He informed that the rice was to be delivered through Ayub Khan at M/s Palak Agro Industries, i.e., the applicant's Mill. Thereafter the aforesaid PDS shop at Chandan Nagar, Indore, was also searched which was being run by its proprietor Ajay Sagar and it transpired that from the aforesaid shop 30 bags of rice were purchased whereas 10 other bags were purchased from the nearby traders. In the aforesaid shop of Ajay Sagar, the rice was also transferred from the Government gunny bags to the polythene bags.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the present case the charge sheet has been filed against the other co-accused persons, however, the investigation is kept pending so far as the applicant is concerned. It is further submitted that false allegations have been levelled against the applicant, as the bags which have been recovered are not the Government PDS bags. Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards the trial court's order and submitted that although the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected looking to the involvement of the applicant in the offence however, it is directed to 3 M.Cr.C.3039-2022 the concerned police officers to proceed according to law as has been directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273.
In support of his contention, counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I. reported as (2021) 10 SCC 773; Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director {(Criminal Appeal No. 929 of 2021) (arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.5234/2021}; Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another {(Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.5442/2021} and the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Neeraj Singh & others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C.No.42154/2021 dated 13.9.2021) and the decision rendered by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Devidas Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in 2008(2) EFR 582. Thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed.
Counsel for the State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer. Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the case diary. From the record, it is found that, serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant that to fill his own coffer, he was procuring the rice from the PDS shop which was meant for the poorest 4 M.Cr.C.3039-2022 of the people. Apparently, the applicant, to his own benefit, is depriving the persons belonging to lower strata of the society of their entitlement to receive the bare minimum food grain from the Government controlled shops, such an offence cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law as a trivial or minor in nature.
So far as the decision rendered in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) is concerned, the same relates to applicability of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., which Section also prescribes that in all cases where the arrest of the person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the Cr.P.C., the notice be issued to such person. So far as sub-section (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it relates to the power of the police officers without warrant and also provides that such a person can be arrested without any warrant if the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary-
"(a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence, or
(b) for proper investigation of the offence; or
(c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or
(d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
5 M.Cr.C.3039-2022 disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or
(e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing."
In the present facts and circumstances of case, the offence committed by the applicant is a white collar one, has the effect of depriving the poorest of people of their only source of getting the food grain at a reasonable price, and has to be dealt with firmly. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court, the custodial interrogation of the applicant appears necessary for proper investigation. So far as the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the applicant are concerned, the same are distinguishable on facts and are of no avail to him.
Accordingly, the present M.Cr.C. stands dismissed.
(Subodh Abhyankar) JUDGE moni Digitally signed by MONI RAJU Date: 2022.02.28 17:00:41 +05'30'