Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 August, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 16 th OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31348 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA S/O SHRI
RAMESHWAR DAYAL MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 53
YEARS, OCCUPATION: MANAGER, R/O PAHARIYA
MOHALLA, MANPURA, THANA BHONTI, TEHSIL
PICHORE, DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SHARAD MISHRA S/O SHRI SANTOSH KUMR
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O PAHARIYA
MOHALLA, MANPURA THANA BHONTI, TEHSIL
PICHHORE, DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR BAHIRANI- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
S TAT I O N BHONTI, TEHSIL PICHHORE, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI R.K.AWASTY- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is First application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.180/2023 registered at Police Station Bhonti, District Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh) for the offences punishable under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 17-08-2023 12:30:09 PM 2 r/w. Section 420, 409 of IPC.
Prosecution story in brief is that a written complaint has been made by Civil Supply Officer to the effect that the inspection of Fair Price Shop, Manpura was carried out on 15.06.2023 and during inspection, record of distribution was not provided to the Civil Supply Officer and the consumers have stated that the distribution of foodgrains made by the applicant no.2 in less quantity despite taking thump impression on POS machine, eligible slip has also not been provided to the beneficiary. Thus, the salesman and manager made the diversion of food articles by depriving the consumer for getting the benefit of Public Distribution System.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further argued prior registration of FIR, the Fair Price Shop was being run by the salesman Mangal Singh Parmar who has committed the irregularities. The charge of Fair Price Shop was given to the present applicant on 06.07.2021 and prior to it on 30.04.2021, the inspection at Fair Price Shop was done and in this regard various notices were issued to salesman Mangal Singh Parmar but he did not deposit the amount of diverted food article. It is further argued that as per Clause - 11 of Public Distribution System Control Order, the distribution of food article is made by the salesman and the applicant no.1 who is Manager of the Society, has no role in distribution of food articles to the beneficiary. Further argument is that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality and if they sent to jail, their reputation in the society would get tarnish. The applicants are permanent resident of District Shivpuri (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 17-08-2023 12:30:09 PM 3 shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.
In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has relied upon the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Chourasiya Vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C. No.2967/2008 decided on 11/10/2013 and in the case of Vikram Singh Vs. The State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C. No.6990/2023, decided on 05/07/2023 and argued that the offence registered under the Essential Commodity Act are bailable in nature and Section 409 of IPC would not attract looking to the allegation levelled in the FIR, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the application and argued that there is sufficient material available on record to connect the applicants with the crime. Further argument is that the investigation is in early stage and more evidence is yet to be collected. The present applicants are absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. Applicant no.1 is having criminal history. Prosecution witnesses in their statements u/S.161 of Cr.P.C. supported the case of prosecution, therefore, at this stage there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Hence, he prayed that the applicants/accused persons should not be granted anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.
It would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 17-08-2023 12:30:09 PM 4 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Consequently, the present bail application is hereby dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE vpn Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 17-08-2023 12:30:09 PM