Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.37312/2019
(Harendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated:-27.09.2019
Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Naval Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is second application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. First application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.08.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.32900/2019.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.187/2019 registered at Police Station Umri, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 13(2) of PDS Control Order, 2015.
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 Enterprises along with his employees and salesman 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 above, crime has been registered.
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.37312/2019 (Harendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he is not concerned with the case directly or indirectly. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that specific allegation has not been levelled against the applicant. The offence under 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is bailable in nature. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is salesman aged about 49 years and he is the permanent resident of District Bhind. There is no likelihood of his absconsion. The applicant 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.
Learned Panel Lawyer 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, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant but with certain stringent conditions.
It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two local solvent sureties each 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.37312/2019 (Harendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by applicant:-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant 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. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be,
7. The applicant shall mark his presence at the concerned Police Station firstly on 04.10.2019 and thereafter once every week till conclusion of investigation.
8. The applicant shall plant 10 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing or shady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence of applicant or at any other place in the district 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.37312/2019 (Harendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installing tree guards at their own expenses. In case the applicant are unable to afford incurring of such expenses, then they would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available under any beneficial scheme of the Government. The applicant shall file an affidavit disclosing compliance of this condition within 30 days in the Registry, failing which this court may consider cancellation of bail.
For effective implementation of this order in the interest of betterment of ecology of the area concerned, the District Magistrate of district within which the applicant reside is directed to assist the applicant/accused to comply with condition No.8 by extending all possible financial and material assistance to the applicant admissible under any of the beneficial scheme for afforestation of the State.
The DFO of the concerned District is directed to file verification report before the trial Court concerned after carrying out inspection personally or through any other officer of the Forest Dept duly authorised in that behalf disclosing as to whether applicant has complied with condition No.8 or not, and if yes to what extent? 5
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.37312/2019 (Harendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.) The learned trial Judge on receiving report of non-compliance of condition No.8 shall forthwith communicate the same to the Registry of this Court.
The Registry on receiving any such report from the trial Court disclosing default shall put up the matter before appropriate Bench in shape of PUD.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives.
A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this court to the concerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the petitioner for execution of the order in the interest of the ecology.
For the time being this case stands disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge bj/-
BARKHA JHA 2019.10.0 1 15:32:03 +05'30'