IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Rahul Bhanpuriya – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 61682 of 2022
Decided On : 02-01-2023
Anticipatory Bail - Theft of Soyabean - The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, considering that the custodial interrogation did not appear necessary due to the applicant's status as a license holder and lack of criminal antecedents.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with the theft of 10 sacks of Soyabean, which he had purchased from co-accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the custodial interrogation of the applicant was not necessary, considering his status as a license holder and lack of criminal antecedents, and granted anticipatory bail.
Issues: Applicant's apprehension of arrest in connection with theft of Soyabean, opposition by the State, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the applicant's status as a license holder, lack of criminal antecedents, and absence of evidence indicating that the purchased Soyabean was stolen property in granting anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing a surety.
JUDGMENT
Subodh Abhyankar, J. - T his is applicant's first application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.725/2022 registered at Police Station Thandla District Jhabua (MP) for offence punishable under Section 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Allegations against the applicant is that he purchased 10 sacks of Soyabean which were stolen by the co-accused persons.
3. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a businessman and is a license holder, which is also placed on record and is valid till 26/02/2026. It is also submitted that the applicant has purchased the Soyabean from the co-accused persons in the regular course of business and was not aware that it was the stolen property. Thus, it is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required hence, the application be allowed and he be released on anticipatory bail.
4. Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out, however, when a query was made by this Court if the sacks were having any indication that it cannot be sold in an open market, counsel has submitted that no such material is available on record to suggest that the sacks could not be sold in an open market.
5. On due consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the case diary as also the documents filed on record and taking note of the fact that the applicant is a license holder and there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear necessary. In view of the same, applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) and furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).
7. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Certified copy as per rules.
The court's decision to grant transit anticipatory bail was influenced by the impending marriage of the applicant No.1 and the need to provide the applicants with time to approach the concerned Court....
The court's decision was influenced by the acquittal of the co-accused and the prosecution's failure to prove the nature of the seized contraband under the NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, based on the circumstances of the case an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of anticipatory bail in connection with possession of unauthorized liquor under Section 34 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915.
The court's decision to grant anticipatory bail was based on the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation and the applicants' willingness to cooperate, in accordance with the provisions of Secti....
Anticipatory bail granted based on the commercial nature of the dispute and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation, following established legal precedents.
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.