Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravindra Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:967
1 MCRC-228-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 228 of 2025
RAVINDRA KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rohit Mishra -Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of BNSS
2023 for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.425 of 2024 registered at
Police Station Pichhore, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence under Sections
3/7 of EC Act R/w-409 of IPC.
Allegation against the present applicant is that he along with co-accused
misappropriated the food grains of Fair Price Shop worth Rs.4,37,525/-.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the case. Nothing has been entrusted with the
present applicant who is only a salesman in the Fair Price Shop. He has been
appointed in 2023 and in respect of the transaction, a separate Civil Suit has been
filed by the Manager against him. Therefore, the allegations against the applicant
are not sustainable as alleged by the prosecution. It is also submitted that since
there is no entrustment of property to the present applicant,therefore, office under
Section 409 of IPC is not made out. It is also submitted that in the similar cases as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:967
2 MCRC-228-2025
decided in Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. State of M.P. , passed in
M.Cr.C.No.54886/2024, dated 15.01.2025, Pushpendra Yadav Vs. State of M.P.,
passed in M.Cr.C.No.25985/2023, dated 11.07.2023, Ghanshyam Kushwah Vs.
State of M.P., passed in M.Cr.C.No.7794/2024 dated 23.02.2024 and Mahesh
Chourasiya Vs. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C.No.2967/2008 dated 11.10.2023,
the co-ordinate Benches of this Court have granted benefit of anticipatory bail to
the applicants. In these circumstances, the benefit of anticipatory bail is to be
granted to the present applicant.
Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the application and
submitted that to the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. has been
initiated against the present applicant, therefore, in the light of Lavesh Vs. State
(Nct of Delhi) as reported in 2012 8 SCC 730 , the anticipatory bail application is
not maintainable. Moreso, there are materials available on record that there was
entrustment of property with the present applicant and he has committed the offece
of breach of trust as defined under Sections 405 and 409 of IPC. Present offence is
related to year 2024 while Civil Suit is filed in respect of transaction of year 2021.
Therefore, no case is made out for granting anticipatory bail to the present
applicant.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
The case of Mahesh Chourasiya (supra) is based on the petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings. In case of Ghanshyam
Kushwah, Pushpendra Yadav and Ajay Kumar Mishra (supra) , the learned Co-
ordinate Benches of this Court have granted benefit of anticipatory bail to the
applicants of those cases considering the merits of the case. In this case, the merits
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:967
3 MCRC-228-2025
of the case are to be considered. Prima facie perusal of the case diary and
documents available on record does not provide any ground to infer that no
material is available on record in relation to offence under Section 409 of IPC.
Moreover, in the case of Lavesh (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court in categorical
terms has held that where the person against whom a warrant has been issued and
is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and
declared a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, then he is not
entitled to relief of anticipatory bail. Relevant para 12 of the said judgment is
reproduced in verbatim as follows:
"12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present
appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was
declared as "absconder". Normally, when the accused is "absconding"
and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of
granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against
whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing
himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a
proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not
entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."
Consequently, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present applicant is
not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mani
