Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
M.Cr.C. No. 22618/2021
(Sunil V/s. The state of M.P.)
Date: 17.05.2021:
Shri Vivek Singh,learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Rawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
********
This is the first bail application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, due to apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.173/2021, Police-Station- Neemuch Cant, District- Neemuch for the commission of offences under Sections 420 of I.P.C. and Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act.
As per prosecution story, the applicant is the proprietor of M/s Nakoda lubricants, which is engaged in making based oil from used oil for the purpose of industrial use. Police received complaint from Ramsingh Gurjar and Yashwant Rathore that the applicant in the name of based oil has sold biodiesel to them without any license. They have produced the bills in which based oil was sold to them. On that basis police registered FIR and seized based oil from the premises of the applicant. Although, he was not arrested at that time. Now he is apprehending his arrest in the present case.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has never sold based oil in the name of biodiesel. The samples were sent to the Laboratory and he is having information that the report has come that the seized oil is not biodiesel oil. He further submits that specific license was required to manufacture the biodiesel. If it is not biodiesel then it is not essential commodities, therefore, offence under Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodities Act is not made out against the applicant. Section 420 of I.P.C. is tribale by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, therefore, therefore, the law laid down by the
- : 2 :-
Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar- (2014) 8 SCC 273 applies. He is reputed businessman, if he is arrested, he will lose his reputation. The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he be released on anticipatory bail.
Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the bail application by submitting that the applicant cannot sale or manufacture the biodiesel, however, he is not having report of any laboratory till date. Hence, application be rejected.
Considering the fact and circumstances, without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the following conditions:
(a) the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(C) If the applicant is found involved in any criminal case of the same nature during this bail period, this order granting the benefit of anticipatory bail shall be liable to be cancelled; (D) he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE praveen PRAVEEN NAYAK 2021.05.18 14:54:51 +05'30'