Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant has filed this first application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he has an apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.419/2020 registered at Police Station Mungawali, District Ashoknagar for the offences punishable under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. It is argued that as per the prosecution story the allegation against the present applicant is that he along with co-accused Santosh Rana, who was a salesman has not opened the shop and the stock and prices were not exhibited and a single customer has received the food stuff two or three times on a eligible slip. There were allegations of distributing the kerosene oil in-violation of the clause 10 which amounts to breach of condition, which are punishable under sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is argued that a writ petition was preferred THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Arvind Singh Rajpoot Vs. State of M.P.) being W.P.No.843/2015 which was finally disposed of vide order dated 18.2.2015 with a direction to prefer an appeal before the Collector. In pursuance to the same, an appeal was preferred before the Collector, District Ashoknagar and the Collector, District Ashoknagar was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the proceedings were dropped. It is submitted that thereafter no such proceedings and no action has been taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the offence registered in the year 2014. It is argued that the applicant has always cooperated in the investigation and has filed the litigation continuously on the basis of which initially the interim relief was granted to him by this Court and thereafter after disposal of the writ petition in the year 2018, on filing an appeal before the Collector, the proceedings were dropped which can be clearly seen from Annexure P/3. The learned Writ Court while disposing of the petition has granted liberty to the State Authorities to initiate fresh proceedings and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law. It is submitted that the issue with respect to offence under section 7 and 8 the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 whether are required to be treated as bailable or non-bailable was considered by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of Shri Jayanta Kumar Das Vs. State of Assam and vide judgment dated 27.10.2017 considering THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Arvind Singh Rajpoot Vs. State of M.P.) all the provisions and subsequent developments as well as the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the High Court of Gauhati has arrived at a conclusion that the offence under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is bailable. It is submitted that this Court, Bench at Indore in M.Cr.C.No.26957/2020 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P.) has also considered the similar aspect and by placing reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of High Court of Gauhati as well as other judgments has held that the offence under sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is bailable. It is submitted that all the arguments were put forth before the learned Trial Court along with the copies of the judgments, but the learned Trial Court has passed a very confusing order wherein no definite opinion regarding offence being bailable or non-bailable has been given and the application of the applicant is disposed of with a liberty to the respondent-police authorities that in case the offence is bailable then the bail bond be furnished or if they arrived at a conclusion that offence is non-bailable then appropriate proceedings be taken up against the applicant. It is submitted that applicant was working as Salesman and has having no direct nexus with the offence if so committed. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court while considering the application for grant of bail. The applicant has shown his willingness to cooperate in the pandemic situation of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Arvind Singh Rajpoot Vs. State of M.P.) COVID-19 and is ready to contribute Rs.10,000/- in the account of High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for benefit of the lawyers during this COVID-19 scenario. Under these circumstances, counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Arvind Singh Rajpoot Vs. State of M.P.) From the perusal of the record it is seen that the offence under section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is registered against the present applicant, who has admittedly working as a Salesman. There are allegations and the offence under section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 being bailable or non-bailable was considered by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of Shri Jayanta Kumar Das Vs. State of Assam, (A.B.No.1205/2017) which reads as under:

The Division bench of Gauhati High Court has arrived at a conclusion that the offence under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act are to be treated as bailable offences. The similar THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Arvind Singh Rajpoot Vs. State of M.P.) analogy was followed in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. by this Court, Bench at Indore in M.Cr.C.No.26957/2020. This Court has held as under:

"Thus, it becomes quite clear that the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is infact a bailable offence. However, as laid down by the Courts referred to above, the confusion is likely to prevail in the minds of the investigating agency who may not be aware of the correct legal position hence, anticipatory bail has been granted looking to such position."

As far as present matter is concerned, keeping in view that offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is actually bailable in nature but still due to reasons mentioned earlier i.e. investigating agency may not be aware about the correct legal position, there is likelihood of arrest of the applicant. In the light of views expressed in the aforesaid citations with which I concur absolutely, application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed in this matter." Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the offence under Essential Commodities is directed to be treated as bailable in certain circumstances and considering the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Arvind Singh Rajpoot Vs. State of M.P.) State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the application in the light of Arnesh Kumar's case.