Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudhir Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 June, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 MCRC-30046-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-30046-2021
(SUDHIR SONI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 30-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.K. Malviya, Panel Lawyer for the respondents-State.
Shri Pramendra Sen, counsel for the objector.
Heard.
This is second application on behalf of applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
Applicant is in custody since 20.04.2021 in connection with Crime No. 15/2021 registered by Police Station STF, District Bhopal for the offences punishable under Section 420, 188 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 3 of the Epidemic Disease Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.05.2021 passed in MCRC No. 21820/2021 with liberty to move a fresh application after filing of challan. He submits that now challan has been filed. Therefore, he has filed this application availing the said liberty. He further submits that he has also filed copy of challan vide IA No.11783/2021, which is on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the case of the prosecution no case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. However, other offences registered against the present applicant are bailable. He submits that even the offence registered under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act has also been considered to be bailable offence in number of cases by this Court. He submits that all the offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First class.
Signature Not Verified SANLearned counsel for the applicant has further argued that in view of the Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2021.07.02 10:23:00 IST 2 MCRC-30046-2021 allegations made in the FIR, it is clear that the present applicant has been falsely implicated and it is a clear cut case of false implication of the present applicant by the police. The applicant has no direct connection with the person from whom the remdesivir injections have been brought and the story narrated by the police in the FIR cannot be relied upon because, as per the prosecution, the Constable of STF gave Rs.10,000/- to the present applicant and co-accused Rahul Vishwakarma for bringing two remedesivir injections, which were to be sold at Rs.19,000/- each. Learned counsel has read over the memorandum statements of the applicant and the co-accused, according to which, the commission, which was to be earned by the present applicant, was less than the amount handed over by the Constable of STF that too when he did not know him and in that situation the applicant was not required to come back alongwith the injections. He submits that it is a false story cooked up by the police and even otherwise all the offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. He has relied upon the several orders of the different High Courts in which bail has been granted to the persons facing charges of similar nature.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the bail application and submitted that considering the conduct of the applicant, as he alongwith other co-accused persons was involved in black-marketing the remdesivir injections, which was not available for sell in the open market, the bail application be rejected.
Learned counsel for the objector has supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent-State and opposed the bail application.
Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the offences registered against the present applicant, which are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and the custody period of the applicant, without commenting anything on merit, this application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2021.07.02 10:23:00 IST 3 MCRC-30046-2021 bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with a surety bond of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
I t is further directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The jail authority is also directed to ensure that before his release, the applicant is examined by the jail doctor to ascertain that he is not afflicted with the COVID-19 virus. If the doctor suspects otherwise, the applicant shall be referred to the appropriate hospital for further management as per the protocol laid down by the State. In the event the jail doctor is of the opinion that the applicant can be released, then he shall be released.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE RAGHVENDRA Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2021.07.02 10:23:00 IST