Amrendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2024

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Amrendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2024

Bench: Anuradha Shukla

                                   1
 IN       THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
            HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                       ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
                 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4149 of 2024

BETWEEN:-
AMRENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI BHAGAT SINGH
BUNDELA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SALESMAN R/O VILLAGE SEMRA KACHHI TEHSIL
MALTHON DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SHREYAS PANDIT - ADVOCATE)

AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
S TATI O N MALTHON DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAGHUVAR PRAJAPATI - PANEL LAWYER)

      Reserved     on : 22.02.2024
      Pronounced on: 04.03.2024

      This application having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                    ORDER

This is second application for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on behalf of the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR/Crime No.339/2023 dated 08.09.2023, registered at Police Station Malthon, district Sagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and Section 409 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and h a s been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The applicant is a permanent resident of district Sagar and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. The applicant is willing and ready to abide by all the directions and conditions to be imposed by this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

This repeat anticipatory bail application has been argued on the ground that the offence of Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is a bailable offence and no case of Section 409 of IPC is made out against the applicant and yet he is facing the apprehension of arrest. It is, therefore, prayed that he be granted anticipatory bail. The earlier bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant was dismissed under M.Cr.C. No.45867/2023 on merits.

There is no doubt that the offence of Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is a bailable offence and for this, the applicant has aptly relied upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in Rakesh Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No.26957/2020) and Koksingh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No.26629/2023) but here the applicant is facing accusation of Section 409 of IPC as well.

It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that the provision of Section 16 of Essential Commodities Act (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 is 3 applicable here which provides for punishment and penalty but those punishments and penalties are in relation to the contravention of any provisions of Central or State Order regarding fair price distribution system. In the present case, applicant is alleged to have been involved in the offence of Section 409 of IPC and not simply for any violation of contravention of any Central or State Order alone. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be successfully argued here even in the light of said amendment Act.

The previous anticipatory bail application of applicant has already been dismissed and now no substantial change in the circumstances has been argued, therefore, this repeat anticipatory bail application is also dismissed.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE ps Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2024.03.05 11:52:57 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court