MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.
Arun Bharti - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 20337 of 2020
Decided On : 01-07-2020
Essential Commodities Act - Anticipatory Bail - 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Licence and Control Order, 1980 - [3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Licence and Control Order, 1980] - The court considered the bailability of the offences under the Essential Commodities Act and the M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Licence and Control Order, 1980, and held that the offences punishable up to three years are bailable, while those punishable up to seven years are non-bailable. The alleged offence affects the society at large, and the court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in connection with a case registered under sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Licence and Control Order, 1980. The prosecution alleged that petrol and diesel were sold despite cancellation of dealership, without any licence, and there was a difference in stock register.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged offence affects the society at large and declined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the offences under the Essential Commodities Act and the M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Licence and Control Order, 1980, were bailable or non-bailable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offences punishable up to three years are bailable, while those punishable up to seven years are non-bailable. The alleged offence affects the society at large, and the court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the application for interim bail was also dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Ia No. 7082/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
2. The applicant has filed this first bail application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
3. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.188/2020 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Datia in relation to the offences punishable under sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Licence and Control Order, 1980.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 11.6.2020 complainant-Junior Supply Officer submitted a complaint that one Indian Oil dealership has been granted in favour of Sarita Bharti. As per prosecution, when on 27.4.2020 inspection was done at the petrol-pump outlet, it was found that sale of petrol and diesel was being done whereas the dealership was already cancelled. It was also found in the inspection that petrol and diesel was sold without licence and there was a difference in stock register, therefore, present case has been registered.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case so registered is frivolous and vexatious. The present applicant is a chronic patient of kidney and liver and he has to undergo dialysis thrice a day at his house. The applicant is totally bed-ridden and is not in a position to do his daily work. Recently he was admitted in the hospital. The documents in support of aforesaid arguments have been submitted. Now no custodial interrogation is required to be done. The present applicant is neither owner nor Manager of the aforesaid petrol-pump outlet and his wife is the owner of the said petrol-pump outlet and without informing her the dealership has been cancelled. The present applicant is aged around 56 years. No case is made out against the applicant. The offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is bailable and, therefore, the applicant cannot be arrested. It is further submitted that in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , arrest of the present applicant is not at all necessary and looking to the COVID-19 pandemic, it would not be appropriate to send the applicant in jail. Hence, prays for grant of anticipatory bail. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments in cases of Kamlesh Dhakad vs. State of MP (MCRC No. 6754/2016 decided on 2.8.2016); Mumtaj Khan vs. State of MP (MCRC No. 13374/2015, decided on 18.12.2015); and, Mayank Jain vs. State of MP (MCRC No. 13601/2016 decided on 2.12.2016).
6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant that the offence is registered under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Licence and Control Order, 1980, which is punishable for seven years, therefore, the aforesaid offence is non-bailable and cognizable. The alleged offence affects the society at large, therefore, prays for rejection of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as held by various judgments of this Court as well as other Courts having competent jurisdiction, the alleged offence has been declared bailable. Therefore, if this Court considers the offence registered as bailable then accordingly direction may be issued to the concerning authorities not to arrest the present applicant.
8. Heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
9. It is undisputed that the present case is registered under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Licence and Control Order, 1980, for which the prescribed punishment may extend up to seven years. The allegations are that petrol and diesel were sold despite cancellation of dealership, without a
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
Bonalumi Vs. Secretary of State
Dinesh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.