Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Firm M/S Shri Gurukripa Khad Beej ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:13373) on 14 March, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:13373]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1321/2024
1. Firm M/s Shri Gurukripa Khad Beej Bhandar, Mitrapura,
Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) Through
Proprietor Shiv Kishan Gurjar Son Of Shri Gabri Lal Gurjar,
R/o 95, Hathai Mohalla, Soorgarh, Sumel, District Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.).
2. Firm M/s Shri Gurukripa Khad Beej Bhandar, Mitrapura,
Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) Through
Proprietor Omprakash Bhadana S/o Shri Heera Lal, R/o
Bawadi Stand Ke Pass, Heeramal Devsthan Ke Pass, Tehsil
Thanagaji, Basi Jogiyan, Alwar (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sharda Gurjar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. G. Chopra-PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
14/03/2024
1. Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.
0337/2023 registered at Police Station Maudaha, District
Hameerpur (UP) for the offence(s) under Sections 19(c)(ii) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, Section 3 of Fertilizer (Circulation Control) Order, 1973, Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the petitioners have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are the proprietor of the firm M/s Gurukripa Khad Beej Bhandar (Downloaded on 19/03/2024 at 08:43:55 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:13373] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1321/2024] and falsely implicated in this case by the complainant due to some ulterior motive. The said FIR has been lodged after delay of one day and the complainant has not given any satisfactory explanation regarding the delay caused. Therefore, petitioners may be granted 90 days time to seek the appropriate remedy from the competent Court.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the transit bail application and submits that Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is bailable one so, there is no imminent danger or apprehension of arrest, therefore, transit bail application of the petitioners may be dismissed.
4. Heard and perused the material placed on record.
5. Recently in the matter of Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.11423-11426 of 2023) decided on 20.11.2023, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:-
"37. It would be impossible to fully account for all exigent circumstances in which an order of extra territorial anticipatory bail may be imminently essential to safeguard the fundamental rights of the applicant. We reiterate that such power to grant extra-territorial anticipatory bail should be exercised in exceptional and compelling circumstances only which means where, denying transit anticipatory bail or interim protection to enable the applicant to make an application under Section 438 of CrPC before a Court of competent jurisdiction would cause irremediable and irreversible prejudice to the applicant. The Court, while considering such an application for extra-territorial anticipatory bail, in case it deems fit may grant interim protection instead for a fixed period and direct the applicant to make an application before a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Apex court also opined as under :-
"40. We are conscious that this may also lead the accused to choose the Court of his choice for seeking (Downloaded on 19/03/2024 at 08:43:55 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:13373] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1321/2024] anticipatory bail. Forum shopping may become the order of the day as the accused would choose the most convenient Court for seeking anticipatory bail. This would also make the concept of territorial jurisdiction which is of importance under the CrPC pale into insignificance. Therefore, in order to avoid the abuse of the process of the Court as well as the law by the accused, it is necessary for the Court before which the plea for anticipatory bail is made, to ascertain the territorial connection or proximity between the accused and the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which is approached for seeking such a relief. Such a link with the territorial jurisdiction of the Court could be by way of place of residence or occupation/work/profession. By this, we imply that the accused cannot travel to any other State only for the purpose of seeking anticipatory bail. The reason as to why he is seeking such bail from a Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the FIR has not been filed must be made clear and explicit to such a Court. Also there must be a reason to believe or an imminent apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence made out by the accused for approaching the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the FIR is not lodged or the inability to approach the Court where the FIR is lodged immediately."
6. After perusing the FIR, it is apparent that under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, the case has been registered against the petitioners.
7. In the matter of Daudayal Sharma Vs. State of U.P & 2 Others (Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No.4344 of 2021) decided on 11.05.2021, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:-
"Offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodity Act is bailable."(Downloaded on 19/03/2024 at 08:43:55 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:13373] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1321/2024]
8. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (M. Cr.C. No.26957 of 2020) decided on 05.09.2020."
9. Thus, there is no imminent danger or reason to believe that the petitioner shall be arrested as the offence is bailable.
10. In view of the above, the present criminal miscellaneous bail application is dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J 154-Rahul Joshi (Downloaded on 19/03/2024 at 08:43:55 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)