Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 June, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1 MCRC-21618-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 6 th OF JUNE, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21618 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SANDEEP SHUKLA S/O SHRI BANWARI SHUKLA, AGED-
40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O NEAR PWD
REST HOUSE KAILARAS DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY BAHIRANI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION UMARI
DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI P.S. RAGHUWANSHI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
T he applicant has filed this first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.187 of 2019 registered at Police Station Umari, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of E.C. Act r/w Section 409 of IPC.
3. Prosecution story, in short, is that the complainant- Sunil Mudgal, Junior Supply Officer has made a written complaint to the Police stating therein that the Transporter of M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation M/s Shukla Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 07-Jun-24 11:55:21 AM 2 MCRC-21618-2024 Enterprises along with his employees and salesmen of the fair price shop along with Manager of co-operative societies have misappropriated the ration of June, 2019, which was to be delivered to the fair price shop. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He is not concerned with the case directly or indirectly. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that specific allegation has not been levelled against the applicant. The offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is bailable in nature. It is submitted that the applicant is a partner of the Transporter i.e. M/s Shukla Enterprises.
Co-accused Deepak Sharma has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.5145/2021, as such the present applicant is also entitled for the same benefit. There is no likelihood of his absconsion, if he is granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. He is permanent resident of District Morena (M.P.). He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for anticipatory bail is made.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has opposed the anticipatory bail application by contending that the applicant is a partner of the Transporter. The applicant is absconding since the date of registration of FIR. Investigation is still pending and therefore, custodial interrogation may be required. The applicant cannot claim parity with the co- accused, in as much as he is the partner of the M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation. Co-accused Deepak Sharma has been exonerated of the charges in inquiry conducted by the Managing Director of the Corporation. On these Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 07-Jun-24 11:55:21 AM 3 MCRC-21618-2024 grounds he has been enlarged on anticipatory bail, which cannot be termed as identical. The applicant is not cooperating in the investigation and the offence is of the year 2019. On such grounds, he prayed for its rejection.
6. After hearing rival contentions and going through the impugned order, this Court finds that more than four years have passed after the incident. On earlier occasion expunge report was submitted, so far as the present applicant was concerned and the police in the investigation had not found the involvement of the present applicant and it was at later stage that the applicant was made an accused. Investigation is already completed and chalan has already been filed in the matter. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the present applicant in the matter.
7. Accordingly, without commenting on merits of the case, the instant application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).
8. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
9. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
(i). The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
(ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
(iii) The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 07-Jun-24 11:55:21 AM 4 MCRC-21618-2024 the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
(iv) The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically, without further reference to the Bench;
(v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and ( vi ) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
10. It is observed that any finding with regard to the involvement of the present applicant with the crime is the prima facie view of this Court after going through the case-diary and the Trial Court may not get influenced with the aforesaid finding during trial.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned for compliance.
12. Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) V. JUDGE Chandni Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 07-Jun-24 11:55:21 AM