Jagdeesh Narayan Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 25122 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179320
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9400 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Jagdeesh Narayan Mishra
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 224 of 2007, Case No. 07 of 2007 (State Vs Jagdeesh Narayana Mishra and Others), under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, P.S. Gohan District Jalaun, during the pendency of trial.

3. The prosecution story is such that in compliance with the instructions given by the SDM, the District Supply Officer filed a written report addressed to PS Gohan, District Jalaun to the effect that a tractor trolley loaded with wheat was found at the Into police post. It has been caught by the police and it should be investigated on the spot. In compliance with the said order, he along with supply inspector and Naib Tehsildar and others went to the police post for investigation. The trolley were found loaded with 21 sacks of wheat and 07 bags of Mahua and on inquiry from the son of the owner of trolly and driver of the of tractor it is revealed that they had loaded 20 sacks of wheat from the house of Dinesh son of Ramdas Pandey, resident of village Sonapur, one sack of wheat from Newada and 07 sacks of Mahua from Shri Lakshmi Narayan resident of village Sonapur on 13.08.2007, which were to be sold. Due to the discrepancy between the statement taken on the spot and the information given by the informer that the alleged wheat caught belongs to the applicant-fair price dealer in Village Sonapur, the investigation team went to village Sonapur. The applicant's shop in the village was found closed. The said action was completed on 13.08.2007 and due to rain and night, the seller's delivery could not be verified on that day. Again on 14.08.2007, along with the said investigation team, he went to village Sonapur/Madnepur and on the spot, 25 BPL card holders/their family members told that they have not been given wheat/rice by the seller on their BPL card for the last several months. Whenever one goes to buy oil, the seller records it on the cards due to his dominance. Apart from this, many villagers told that on 13.08.2007, sacks of one quintal of wheat were loaded in the tractor trolley from the Kotedar's shop, but they refused to give statement due to fear. Thereafter, he went with the investigation team to the shop of applicant, where his nephew was found present on the spot and it was told by him that the applicant had gone out and after opening the shop, the stock of essential commodities available was checked and it was found to be correct as per the available stock register. Stock register and sale register were obtained from the shop on the spot. From the observation of the stock register of the seller and the statements of the villagers/card holders, it is clear that the complete distribution of BPL food grains has been shown in the last months whereas the card holders given statement that they did not receive the BPL commodities. It is alleged that applicant is involved in black marketing of food grains and has thus committed offence under the E.C. Act.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that against the cancellation of fair price shop applicant filed Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 28051 of 2008, which has been allowed by this court by quashing the order of cancellation of fair price shop. It is further contended that the the alleged recovered commodities has been released in favour of its claimant by the order of SDM, Madhogarh. It is further submitted that the applicant also approached this Court by filing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7417 of 2013 challenging entire proceedings of Case No. 07 of 2007 (State Vs Jagdeesh Narayana Mishra and Others), under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, P.S. Gohan District Jalaun wherein interim protection was granted to the applicant vide order dated 6.3.2013. Lateron in view of the decision of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd and Another Vs CBI, the protection has been vacated by the court below and coercive process has been initiated against the applicant.

5. It is contended that in the FIR, false allegation has been levelled against the applicant. He further submits that allegations made against the aforesaid applicant are fake and general in nature. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time. It is further submitted that the shop in question was restored and the recovered wheat has been released as such no offence is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgement of Hon. Apex Court rendered in Mohd Asfak Alam Vs State of Jharkhand and another, 2023 SCC Online SC 892 to contend that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted and there is no need of custodial interrogation, hence the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trila.

6. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

7. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

8. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Jagdeesh Narayan Mishra involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(2) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

(7) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

9. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 18.9.2023

RavindraKSingh