Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayshri Gayatri Foods Private Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1563
1 MCRC-42056-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42056 of 2024
JAYSHRI GAYATRI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devmani Bansal - Advocate through VC with Shri Siddharth Shukla -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Pandey - Govt. Advocate for the respondent no.1/State.
None for the respondent no.2.
ORDER
Applicant has filed this petition under Section 528 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 making a prayer for quashing of
the impugned orders dated 26.7.2024 and 8.8.2024 passed in Sessions
Trial No. 350/2024.
2. Respondent no.2 has filed an application for modification of
condition of deposit of FDR for release of article on superdginama.
Applicant wants to give security of immovable property in place of
FDR. Application for release of article was allowed by Revisional Court
and applicant was directed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 15 crores or
equivalent amount of fixed deposit receipt. FDR of said value of State
Bank of India was furnished on 22.12.2023 and article was released in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1563
2 MCRC-42056-2024
favour of respondent no.2. Trial Court relying on the judgment passed In
Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail S.M.W.P. 4/21(Criminal) vide
order dated 31.1.2023, modified the condition of release of article and
permitted respondent no.2 to furnish security of immovable property of
same value in place of FDR. Vide order dated 8.8.2024, FDR was
returned to respondent no.2 and acknowledgement was given.
3. Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is
a complainant and owner of property in question. Butter has been
embezzled by accused persons and later on sold. Applicant has also filed
an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
giving butter on superdginama. Application was allowed vide order
dated 6.12.2023 and interim custody of article is to be given on filing
security of Rs. 15 crores. Said order was challenged in revision by the
respondent no.2. Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 645/2023
passed order dated 9.12.2023 and allowed the application. Interim
custody of butter is to be given to respondent no.2 on furnishing bank
guarantee of Rs. 15 crores or FDR of equivalent value. It is submitted
that trial Court had committed an error in unilaterally modifying the
condition by replacing the same and permitting respondent no.2 to
furnish security of immovable property in place of FDR of Rs.15 crores,
therefore, orders may be set aside.
4. None appeared for the respondent no.2 after service of notice.
Respondent no.2 was served on 24.10.2024, therefore, respondent no.2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1563
3 MCRC-42056-2024
was proceeded ex parte.
5. Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the
petition and submitted that well reasoned order has been passed.
Custody of article has already been handed over to respondent no.2.
Respondent no.2 has furnished FDR and later on he had filed an
application for replacing FDR with security of immovable property.
Article released is secured by immovable property. No rights of
petitioner are being violated, therefore, petition may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
found that applicant has filed an First Information Report bearing Crime
No.492/2023 of cheating and criminal misappropriation against accused
persons. Respondent no.2 is purchaser of the article. Applicant had filed
an application for interim custody of article. Applicant being owner is
interested to get the article on interim custody. Article was released in
favour of respondent no.2 by Revisional Court on condition of giving
bank guarantee of Rs. 15 crores or deposit of FDR of equivalent value.
Trial Court has not given any reason how order of modification of
condition in bail order is applicable in modifying the condition attached
to release of an article on interim custody. There is enabling provision
under Section 439 (1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure permitting
Court to modify the condition of bail order. However, there is no such
enabling provision in Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1563
4 MCRC-42056-2024
1973. Visiting order of release of property again to modify the condition
will amount to review. Further person who is interested in property must
be given an opportunity of hearing before modifying the condition of
release of property as it may effect in adversely or it is interest. In view
of same, impugned orders violate the rights of natural justice of
petitioner and there is no enabling provision to modify the condition and
Court cannot exercise the power of review.
8. Consequently, orders dated 26.7.2024 and 8.8.2024 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 350/2024 are set aside. Applicant is directed to give
bank guarantee or furnish FDR as per the order passed by Revisional
Court dated 19.12.2023.
9. Petition is disposed off.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
AD/
