Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramavtar Agrawal(Adukia) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-50141-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 50141 of 2021
(RAMAVTAR AGRAWAL(ADUKIA) Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 29-10-2021
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Seema Jaiswal, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the objector.
This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The applicant is in custody since 28.09.2021 in connection with
Cr i me No.528/2021 registered at Police Station-Shahpura, District-
Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and
468 of the IPC.
As per prosecution case, on 27.09.2021, an information was
received at Police Station Shahpura from the Crime Inspection Squad
stating therein that co-accused-Subhashish Sanyal brought various sacks
of poultry feeds from Narmada Gelatin Factory Mirganj, Jabalpur and
mixed lime powder dust, DCP, Dicalcium Phosphate and other elements
in the alleged sacks. The same was done fraudulently by co-accused-
Subhashish in order to deceive people and by manufacturing and
feloniously selling the feeds to the poultry farms. It is further alleged that
the refined sacks of poultry feed were converted into adulterated sacks of
poultry feed. Thereafter, police party made raid in the house of co-
accused Subhashish. Some laborers were found to be adulterating
powder in the poultry feed sacks. Thereafter, a case has been registered
against the present applicant and other co-accused persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case. There is no allegation against the
present applicant regarding manufacturing of alleged poultry feed and
2 MCRC-50141-2021
sale thereof. The name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the
FIR. Only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused, present
applicant has been made as an accused in the case. Nothing incriminating
has been seized from the possession of present applicant. Applicant is
aged about 72 years and suffering from old age infirmity. A s per the
prosecution, the co-accused was doing the said adulteration in the name
of Narmada Gelatin Factory and the present applicant was assisting co-
accused being accountant. But no complaint is made by the said firm
against the accused persons. For the sake of arguments, if the prosecution
case is taken into consideration, at the most, the case would fall under the
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 or the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960. The learned counsel for the applicant also read the
Section 11-C of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 in which the
punishment of fine is prescribed on the first attempt. As per the applicant,
penal provision of IPC do not apply in this matter. He has also pointed
out the procedure to launch the prosecution under said special Act.
Conclusion of trial will take time for final disposal. There is no
probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of the
prosecution. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays
for grant of bail to the applicant. In support of his contention, he has filed
the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as
this High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. v.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate reported in 2018 SCC OnLine
Utt 1155, Silver Drop Food And Beverages (p.) Ltd. and Anr. v. State
of Assam and Ors. reported in (2020)4 Gauhati Law Reports 738 and
in the case of Aashish v. state of M.P. in Criminal Revision
No.804/2020 order dated 25.02.2020, respectively.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as
learned counsel for the objector opposes the said bail application
3 MCRC-50141-2021
submitting that all accused persons were very well involved in the
alleged offences by mixing of substandard material in poultry feed sacks.
Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
Considering the contention of both the parties and the fact that
applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, he is aged about 72 years
suffering from old age infirmity, he is in custody since 28.09.2021,
conclusion of trial will take time for final disposal and also this fact that
there is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, it is not appropriate to keep the applicant
in jail whole the trial, but without commenting on merits of the case,
application of the present applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.
It is directed that applicant-Ramavtar Agrawal (Adukia) be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for her
appearance before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned
Court. It is directed that the petitioner shall comply with the provisions
of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus
disease (COVID-19)' the applicant shall also comply the rules and norms
of social distancing.
Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
i n suo motto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the
following direction to the jail authority :-
1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the
applicant by the jail doctor before his release.
2 . The applicant shall not be released if he is suffering from
'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried
out.
4 MCRC-50141-2021
3 . If it is found that the applicant is suffering from 'Corona Virus
disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by
placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
Digitallysp
signed by
SAVITRI PATEL
Date: 2021.10.29
18:49:23 +05'30'
