Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Shakya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-30187-2019
(Anil Shakya Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 30/07/2019
Shri Harshad Bahirani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor for
respondent/State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
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 salesmans 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.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has 2 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. It is on his information with regard to non- supply of food, complaint has been got lodged 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 47 years and he is the permanent resident of District- Bhind. There is no likelihood of his absconsion, if he is granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. He 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 Public Prosecutor 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 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; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge rahul RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR 2019.07.31 11:55:25 +05'30'