Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishnapal Singh Kansana vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1 MCRC-8230-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-8230-2021
(KRISHNAPAL SINGH KANSANA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 02-03-2021
Shri Sanjay Bahirani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sangam Jain, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
This is first application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory
bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.754/2020
registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior for offence under Section 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act read with Sections 353, 34 and 186 of IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant Krishnapal Singh Kansana
that the applicant has falsely been implicated. He has not committed any offence.
False case has been registered against the applicant for illegal transportation of
paddy, which does not come within the purview of Essential Commodities Act,
therefore, no case is made out against the applicant. The applicant has not committed
any violation of the control order. It is further submitted that even if the allegations
levelled are accepted in toto, then the offences committed by the applicant comes
under the provisions of Section 7(1)(a)(i) of Essential Commodities Act for which
maximum punishment prescribed is upto one year. No offence under Section 7(1)(a)
(ii) of Essential Commodities Act is made out against the applicant. Further, a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has already observed in the case of Arvind Singh
Rajput vs. State of M.P., (MCRC No.38805/2020, Date of Order:- 22/10/2020)
that offences under the Essential Commodities Act be treated as bailable offence. So
far as offences under the IPC are concerned, maximum punishment under Section
353 of IPC is upto two years and under Section 186 of IPC is only six months. It is
further submitted that the applicant is ready and is willing to co-operate in the
investigation and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant or for directions to the
police authorities in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, [(2014) 8 SCC 273].
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the anticipatory bail
application and has submitted that case against the present applicant is registered
under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act read with Section 353, 34 and 186
2 MCRC-8230-2021
of IPC wherein allegations against the present applicant and other co-accused
persons are that they were tagging the paddy, brought from Itawa, Uttar Pradesh,
under the Badagaon Bridge Highway. On seeing the complainant, who is a District
Marketing Officer, other co-accused persons fled away from the spot but present
applicant was present on the spot, who during inspection, snatched the documents of
the complainant and tore it apart thereby prevented the complainant from discharging
his official duties. The documents were later collected by the Civil Supply Officer.
Prima facie, the offence comes under the provisions of Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of
Essential Commodities Act for which maximum punishment prescribed is upto seven
years. Hence, prayed to reject the anticipatory bail application looking to the gravity
of offence.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available
on record.
Looking to the allegations levelled against the applicant as well as its gravity,
this Court does not find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Hence, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the application is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
ALOK KUMAR
2021.03.03
JUDGE
12:42:14 +05'30'
11.0.8
AKS
