Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhutan @ Bhuttu vs State Of M.P. on 17 September, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
M.Cr.C. No. 27173/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
M.Cr.C. No. 27173 of 2021
Bhutan @ Bhuttu S/o. Mahan Mishra, Age : 53 years, Occupation :
Business, R/o. Village Moja, Sirsiya Thana, Kuchaiya, Tehsil Gopal Ganj,
Bihar.
---Applicant.
Versus
State of M.P. through Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District Indore.
---Respondent.
Date: 17.09.2021 :
Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Panel Advocate for
respondent/State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
ORDER
This is a repeat (2nd) application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C.
by the applicant who is in custody since 20.2.2021 in connection with
Crime No.123/2021 registered at Police Station Rajendra Nagar,
Indore for offence punishable under Sections 420, 407, 384 of the IPC.
The first application was dismissed on merit vide order dated
23.4.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.14227/2019.
As per prosecution story, complainant - Rajkumar Yadav R/o.
Nipaniya, Indore submitted a written complaint in Police Station
Rajendra Nagar, Indore that since last 1 ½ years he is doing the
business of sale of garlic and onion from Shujalpur Mandi with his
partner Mrityunjay Singh. On 30.1.2021 he along with Mrityunjay
Singh went to Choithram Mandi, Indore to purchase garlic. Since they
were not having the license to participate in the auction, therefore, they
met Umesh Agrawal of shop No.124 and purchased 10 Tonnes of
garlic worth Rs.5,75,000/- through him for transportation of the same
to Waranasi. Umesh Agrawal had arranged an Eicher Truck for
Rs.48,000/-. He paid Rs.20,000/- as an advance and agreed to pay
remaining Rs.28,000/- after delivery of the goods at Banaras to Ashfaq
Traders. The Registration number of the Eicher Truck was GJ-05-BV-
- : 2 :-
M.Cr.C. No. 27173/2021
8382. He was given the mobile number of the driver of the truck. The
goods was dispatched on 31.1.2021 through Umesh Agrawal. He was
in contact with the driver up to Fatehpur on 2.2.2021.Thereafter, the
mobile number of the driver was found switched off and the vehicle
did not reach to the destination. Thereupon, he made a contact with
Umesh Agrawal. He received a phone call from Rajkumar Yadav who
demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for the safe delivery of the goods.
Accordingly, he lodged the FIR. The matter was taken into
investigation. In the investigation, the police has found that Eicher
Truck bearing Registration No. GJ-05-BV-8382 is registered in RTO,
Surat, Gujarat in the name of the present applicant. The phone number
from which the demand was made is registered in the name of Ankit
Mishra S/o. Bhutan Mishra i.e. the present applicant. The mobile
details of the driver were also obtained. The sim of the said mobile
was found registered in the name of Bajrang Mishra - another son of
the present applicant and that mobile was found switched off on
2.2.2021 in Village Madhumati Sasamusa, Bihar. On the basis of the
aforesaid investigation the present applicant and his two sons were
made accused in this case. The applicant was arrested but his two sons
have not been arrested so far.
The first application was dismissed for the following reason/s :
"7. It is not in dispute that garlic was loaded in the truck
belonging to the present applicant, which is missing till today. The
son of the applicant has not been arrested so far. The applicant is a
resident of Gopal Ganj, Bihar and if he is released, he will never
appear before the trial court. Therefore, at this stage, he is not
entitled for bail. The application is rejected."
Now, this second repeat application has been filed mainly on the
ground that the FIR has wrongly been registered at Indore because the
court at Indore has no territorial jurisdiction to conduct a trial against
the applicant in this case in view of Section 181(4) of the Cr.P.C.
because the goods said to have been misappropriated either in U.P. or
in Bihar. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant
has placed reliance over the judgments reported in the case of Public
- : 3 :-
M.Cr.C. No. 27173/2021
Prosecutor V/s. Podimonu Beary : AIR 1928 Madras 1136; Shanti
Saroop Gupta V/s. Chandra Kant Bole : 1972 Cri.L.J. 794; and
Bijay Kumar Jalan V/s. State of Assam : CRLJ-2018-0-523. He,
therefore, prays for release of the applicant on bail because his custody
in the present case is illegal.
On the other hand, learned Panel Advocate appearing for the
respondent/State, opposes the prayer and prayed for rejection of this
bail application.
In this case, the FIR is not registered u/s. 406 of the IPC, but
registered u/s. 420, 407 and 384 of the IPC. The complainant said to
have been cheated at Indore. The goods as well as the vehicle have not
been recovered so far, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be ascertained
as at which place the goods and the truck have been misappropriated.
The offences have been committed at various places, therefore, in this
case Section 178 of Cr.P.C. would apply because the offences consist
of several acts done in different local areas. Even otherwise, there is no
change in the circumstances after rejection of the first bail application.
I find that no case for grant of bail is made out.
Accordingly, this repeat (2nd) bail application is dismissed.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2021.09.18 13:37:40 +05'30'
