Vineet Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7375 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                   M. CR. C. No. 49822 / 2021
      VINEET GOYAL AND PRAVAR GOYAL Vs. STATE OF MP
                                                           --- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 12/11/2021
      Mr. Avinash Sirpurkar, learned senior counsel appearing
with Mr. Vinayak Balchandani, Advocate for the applicants.
      Mr. Aditya Garg, learned GA for the respondent - State.

This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of the applicants for grant of bail. The applicants are implicated in connection with Crime No.617/2020 registered at Police Station- Neemuch Cantt., Distt. Neemuch, (MP) for commission of offence punishable under Section 272, 273, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants are in custody since 21/9/2021.

As per prosecution story, on 3/12/2020, Food Safety Officer, conducted a raid in applicants' factory namely; Darshil Agro Industries and took sample of Oil Polish and Colour and had sent sample to the State Food Safety Laboratory, Bhopal. As per the report of the Food Analyst, sample of wheat were declared as of sub-standard and mis-branded and the sample of colours are declared as adulterant. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the present applicants.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent person and have been falsely implicated in this case. Applicants runs a firm namely; Darshil Agro Industries and business of supplying wheat grains. They have obtained valid and legal license from the Food Safety Administration, Neemuch and has not committed any offence and falsely implicated in this offence. As per the definition of 'mis-branded food' given under Section 3(zf) and the definition of 'adulterant', as defined u/S. 3(1a) of The Food Safety and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M. CR. C. No. 49822 / 2021 VINEET GOYAL AND PRAVAR GOYAL Vs. STATE OF MP

--- 2 ---

Standards Act, 2006, the sample was neither misbranded nor adulterant. Food Safety Officer has also filed a complaint before the A.D.M. Neemuch and as per the order of the adjudicating Officer, applicant had already paid the penalty amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and seized articles has also been released for cattle feeding. It is submitted that no offence u/S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Smt.Meera Agrawal Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2010 (1) FAC 114. It is contended that learned Court below has not considered the grounds raised by the applicant and dismissed the bail application without appreciating the material placed before it. The applicants are permanent resident of Neemuch and there is no chance of their fleeing from the course of justice. Final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time. He, therefore, prays that applicants be released on bail.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate for respondent - State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that in view of the evidence available on record, applicants are not entitled for bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary as well as the impugned order.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation and gravity of the offence and also taking note of the fact that applicants are in custody since 21/9/2021, they are permanent residents and businessmen of District Neemuch, investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M. CR. C. No. 49822 / 2021 VINEET GOYAL AND PRAVAR GOYAL Vs. STATE OF MP

--- 3 ---

trial will take considerable long time for its final conclusion, taking into consideration the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Meera Agrawal (supra), without commenting upon the merits of the case, I deem it proper to release the applicants on bail.

Accordingly, the application filed by the applicants are allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on their each furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Before releasing the applicants from custody, the jail authorities are directed to medically examine them in order to rule out the possibility of COVID-19 infections and shall comply with the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No.1/2020.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE KR

Digitally signed by KAMAL RATHORE Date: 2021.11.12 14:20:20 +05'30'