Chattisgarh High Court
Gopal Modi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2022
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 854 of 2022
Gopal Modi S/o Late Narayan Prasad Aged About 49 Years R/o
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Korba, Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Urga, District
Korba (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant
________________________________________________________
For the Applicant : Mr. Surendra Singh Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Manoj Paranjpe & Mr.
Anshul Tiwari, Advocates.
For State/ Non-applicant : Mr. Sameer Oraon, G.A.
________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
05.08.2022
1.
This is first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused/applicant who is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.252/2022
registered at P.S.- Urga, District- Korba, CG for the offence
punishable under Sections 186, 332, 353 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.04.2022 at about 3:30 -
4 O'clock the complainant namely Pal Singh Dahariya who was
posted as Inspector, Legal Metrology at Korba along with other
persons had inspected the Rice Mill of the applicant named and
styled as Narayan Parwati Dharamkata and Rice Mills and while he
was discharging his official duties, he was obstructed from doing the
same. It is further alleged that the applicant along with two other
persons dashed the complainant and therefore, the complainant got
head injury. The FIR has been lodged at Police Station Urga against
the present applicant and therefore there is apprehension that the
applicant can be arrested at any time.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that offences for
which the present applicant is apprehending his arrest is triable by
Magistrate and maximum sentence which may be awarded is 3 years.
He submits that the complainant who happens to be a Metrological
Inspector visited the premises of present applicant on 12.04.2022 and
submitted that certain amount was to be paid for verification of the
weighing Machine which is installed in the private factory premises of
the present applicant. He further submits that at the end, usual
requirement of Rs.3000/- was paid on 27.11.2021 which is filed as
Annexure A/2 for renewal of installing weighing machine. After
depositing the said amount the complainant Pal Singh Dahariya
visited the said Rice Mill on 12.04.2022 and informed that he has
increased the amount and as per the said information on 12.04.2022
Rs.7000/- has been deposited. However, from 12.04.2022 to
25.02.2022 no objection was raised nor any report was prepared
against the changing of monitor installed in the Rice Mill of the
present applicant. It is further submitted that the proceeding of seizure
of monitor should be initiated on 12.04.2022 at the time of physical
verification initiated by Pal Singh Dahariya. Surprisingly on
25.04.2022 the complainant came along with other persons and
demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2 lacs from the Manager of the
mill of the present applicant but at that time the applicant was not
present. Thereafter he came to the premises but by that time the
complainant had unplugged the monitor and took it into his car.
Thereafter some scuffle took place between the two where on
account of being pushed by the applicant, the complainant sustained
a simple injury on the head. He further submits that vide notification
dated 03.03.2021 published in the Chhattisgarh Law Times, the
complainant was not authorized to inspect the premises of the
present applicant therefore it cannot be said that the complainant was
performing his official duty, therefore aforesaid offence would not be
made out. Therefore he would be entitled for anticipatory bail. He
further submits that against the complainant, the present applicant
has also made a complaint before the SHO and the District
Magistrate and after inquiry by the Additional Collector and the Food
Officer they submitted their report Annexure A-10 in which certain
adverse findings have been recorded against the complainant. This
goes to show that when illegal demands were not fulfilled by the
present applicant, the present FIR has been lodged by the
complainant. Counsel for the applicant further submits that this Court
vide order dated 23.06.2022 has granted ad-interim relief to the
applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
anticipatory bail application and submits that the complainant being a
public servant is vested with the power under Section 13 of The Legal
Metrology Act, 2009, he also submits that Section 24 of the Act gives
power to issue notification and on the basis of said notification an
inspection can be made in all the premises including the private
premises. He further submits that in discharge of his official duties the
complainant was beaten by the present applicant and other accused
persons which resulted into head injuries. He however fairly submits
that the injury sustained by the complainant is simple in nature. He
further submits that from the statement of the complainant as well as
other eyewitnesses involvement of the present applicant is not
established. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement reported in 2019(9) SCC 24 he has referred Para 69
and submits that it is not an exceptional case where the anticipatory
bail can be granted to the applicant and therefore, in view of the
above facts and circumstances there is no requirement warranting
interference by this Court and extending the benefit of Section 438 of
CrPC to the applicant.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by counsel for the parties at length, looking to the allegations
and counter allegations, the inquiry report submitted by the Additional
Collector (Annexure A-10), the documents which have been
appended to this application and also looking to the nature of injuries
suffered by the complainant, I feel inclined to allow this application.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the
event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the
following conditions:-
(a) He 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 them from disclosing such fact to
the Court or to any police officer,
(b) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to
fair and expeditious trial,
(c) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature
in future.
(d) He shall appear before the concerned Police
Officer/Investigating Officer on 24.08.2022 for co-operating in
investigation.
6. It is made clear that the if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated
by the applicant, the State would be free to move for cancellation of
bail. The observation made hereinabove are only for the purpose of
deciding the bail application and it will not have any bearing on the
merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
parul
