Delhi High Court
Kamlesh vs State on 11 November, 2014
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th November, 2014
+ BAIL APPLN. 1102/2014
KAMLESH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State alongwith ASI Tejram
Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
O R DER
: SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C moved by the petitioner
for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.371 u/s 7/10/55 of EC
Act, P.S. Najafgarh, Delhi.
2. Prosecution case is that as per the direction of Special
Commissioner, Department of Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs,
a team comprising of Senior Officers visited the business premises of
FPS No.8994, M/s Amit Provision Store functioning at Plot No.18,
Ishwar Colony, Najafgarh, Delhi on 01.05.2014. Bharat Bhushan was
present, who introduced himself as helper of licensee of FPS. The
record was not available in the business premises of FPS which was
brought by Bharat Bhushan from outside the shop. Brij Bhushan who
introduced himself as husband of licensee (Kamlesh) was also
present. Record was seized. On physical checking of stock, excess of
7.74 quintal of rice was found. Other irregularities like stock board
not displayed, licence not displayed, complaint book not found inside
FPS, certificate of weighing machine not found and list of BPL/AAY
cards not displayed, were found. Pursuant to a complaint received,
the present FIR was registered.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that proper
inspection of fair price shop of the petitioner was not conducted.
Compliance of Section 100 of CPC was not done. The inspection was
not witnessed by any independent and respectable inhabitants of the
locality. The alleged excess quantity of rice is in fact food grain
wastage which was accumulated by the passage of time in and outside
the business premises of FPS during loading/unloading of bags
containing food grains. Moreover during the process of distribution
of food grains to the beneficiaries, wastage of some quantity of food
grains can never be avoided which has happened in the instant case.
It was further submitted that as per the relevant provisions of law, the
raiding party was required to collect samples to authenticate the
allegation of excess rice but despite request, the samples were not
collected. The relevant records of the FPS are already in possession
of the concerned officers. The petitioner is cooperating in the
investigation. On 12.05.2013, the Investigating Officer collected
sample of food grains wasted ,hence no further recovery is to be
effected. It was further submitted that pursuant to the raid, the licence
of the petitioner was suspended, which has been restored vide order
dated 16.10.2014. Since the petitioner is cooperating in the
investigation and is not required for the purpose of custodial
interrogation, as such she be released on bail.
4. Application is opposed by learned APP for the State and it
was submitted that the raid was conducted by senior officers
comprising of SDM Seemapuri, IPS Probationer, Inspector Anti-
Corruption Branch and other senior police officers. During the course
of inspection 7.74 quintal of rice was found in excess. It was
submitted that instead of providing the food grains to the authorised
persons, the petitioner used to sell food grains at market rate to earn
money. The offence is grave in nature which entails punishment upto
7 years as such petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. When the bail application was filed, interim protection was
granted to the petitioner and she was directed to join investigation as
and when required. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the grant of
interim protection, she has joined investigation and all the documents
have been taken in police possession. The question whether the
excess of 7.74 quintal is rice as is the case of prosecution or food
grains waste as alleged by the petitioner is required to be proved
during the course of trial as sample has already been taken.
6. As per the status report, statement of the witnesses have been
recorded and draft charge-sheet has already been prepared which will
be submitted after scrutiny by the prosecution branch meaning
thereby that petitioner is no longer required for the purpose of
investigation.
7. Under the circumstances, keeping in view the totality of the
facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that in the event of
her arrest:-
(i) Petitioner be admitted to bail on her executing personal bond
in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned
I.O./SHO.
(ii) She shall join the investigation as and when called for by the
I.O.
(iii) She shall furnish her address as well as her contact number to
the Investigating Officer.
(iv) She shall not threaten or coerce complainant or any
prosecution witness.
The application is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be
given dasti under the signature of Court Master.
(SUNITA GUPTA)
JUDGE
November 11, 2014/as
