Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Manju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 October, 2021
Author: Anil Verma
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M CR C No. 49683 / 2021
SMT. MANJU Vs. STATE OF MP
--- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 05/10/2021
Mr. Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned PL for the respondent - State.
This first application u/S. 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is filed by applicant Smt. Manju who is
apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 744/2021,
registered at P.S. Bhanwarkuwa, Distt. Indore (MP) for
commission of offence punishable u/Ss. 272, 273, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
As per prosecution story, FIR was lodged on 21/9/2021 by
Pushpak Kumar Dwivedi, Food Officer, alleging that applicant is
running a Factory in the name of 'Shri Ram Milk Food Dairy
Industries' and during sudden inspection of the Factory, it has
been found that the applicant was manufacturing Ghee, sample
has been collected as per the Rules and it has been found that the
seized Ghee was sub-standard. Accordingly, offence has been
registered against the present applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant
has no connection with the aforesaid crime, she is innocent and
she is a housewife and has been implicated falsely in the
aforementioned offence. The criminal proceedings in the present
case is an ex-facie abuse of process of law and the applicant
cannot be prosecuted in view of the law laid down by the apex
Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in
1992 Supp. (1) 335. Reliance has also been placed upon the
order dated 29/9/2021 passed by the coordinate Bench of this
Court in M.Cr.C.No. 47859/2021 (Devendra Kumar Vs. State of
M.P.). The entire license and other documents were issued in the
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M CR C No. 49683 / 2021
SMT. MANJU Vs. STATE OF MP
--- 2 ---
name of Narendra Gupta. No report has been received regarding
the sample taken by the non-applicant, therefore, the product in
question cannot be considered to be sub-standard. No ingredients
of the offence are made out in the present case. The applicant is
suffering from various ailments and living by only one kidney.
There is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant.
Applicant is a respectable citizen of Indore. Hence, he prays that
applicant be released on anticipatory bail, in the interest of
justice.
Per contra, learned PL for respondent - State opposes the
bail application and supported the order impugned and prays for
rejection of the bail application.
Perused the case diary as well as impugned order of the
trial Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
also the nature and gravity of the allegation and after perusal of
the case diary it revealed that the present applicant remained
present while the sample of Ghee was being collected by the
Food Inspector. She has also signed the sale receipt, recovery
memo, notice form and all other relevant documents on the spot,
therefore, it cannot be said that no evidence is available against
the present applicant.
As per the report of the Food Safety Officer, seized Ghee
was found to be of sub-standard and sample has also been sent
for the purpose of Chemical Examination to the Food Laboratory
and analysis report is still awaited. This Court has very carefully
gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the applicant. However, they are distinguishable on facts. In
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M CR C No. 49683 / 2021
SMT. MANJU Vs. STATE OF MP
--- 3 ---
view of the prima facie evidence available on record, the present
applicant does not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
KR
Digitally signed by KAMAL RATHORE
Date: 2021.10.05 18:34:51 +05'30'
