This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short hereinafter referred to

as 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to enlarge the petitioner who is

arraigned as accused No.2 on anticipatory bail, in Crime

No.177/2022 of Afzalpur Police Station, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential

Commodities Act, 1955, pending on the file of Civil Judge

and JMFC Court at Afzalpur, Kalaburagi.

2.

An FIR came to be registered on the basis of a

complaint lodged by one Haridas Chopade, Food Inspector,

Afzalpur, wherein it is alleged that on 28.07.2022 at about

09:30 p.m., he received an information that a TATA Ace

vehicle bearing No.KA-32/AA-1660 is transporting illegally

the rice bags which were meant for public distribution and

the said vehicle was parked in APMC yard Afzalpur. The

complainant went along with officials and panchas near

APMC yard at about 10:15 p.m. and found that TATA Ace

vehicle was parked near APMC yard and they also found in

3

the vehicle around 38 plastic bags containing rice, which

was meant for distribution to the public. When they

enquired the person in the vehicle, he told his name as

Pradeep Rathod who is arraigned as accused No.1 and he

has failed to produce any valid license or permit for

transporting of said rice bags. The said person – Pradeep

informed

the

complainant that at

the

instance

of

petitioner/Shankar Suryavanshi, he loaded the rice bags in

his vehicle for transportation. Accordingly, the complainant

in the presence of panchas seized the rice bags along with

vehicle

and

thereafter

panchanama

was

drawn.

Subsequently, the above said case came to be registered.

3.

It is further alleged that when the complainant

weighed the said rice bags which were in the TATA ace

vehicle, the total weight of the rice bags was 19 quintals 2

kgs., worth of Rs.1,25,000/-. The petitioner apprehending

the arrest, filed the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C

before the Sessions Court, but the same came to be

rejected. Hence, this petition.

4

4.

Heard Sri. Ravindra H.Babaleshwar, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Veeranagouda Mali Patil,

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

for

respondent/State.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that

the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition only

on the ground that the alleged vehicle which was used for

the commission of offence and which was seized in the

case belongs to the petitioner. But he has obtained the RC

book, which discloses that the petitioner/accused No.2 is

not the owner of the said vehicle, it is accused

No.1/Pradeep Rathod who is the owner of the said vehicle.

The name of this petitioner is falsely implicated in this case

on the say of accused No.1. Hence, prayed to allow the

petition.

6.

Against this, learned HCGP argued that the

alleged offence is against the society which is the

economical office and heinous one. The rice bags which

were carrying by the accused is meant for distribution of

public. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may

5

abscond, he may not be available for trial, he may

threaten the prosecution witnesses and may commit

similar offences as now alleged against him which will have

impact on the society. Hence, prayed to reject the petition.

7.

I have perused the FIR and copy of the R.C.

book. The name of the petitioner is included in FIR on the

basis of the statement of accused No.1. It is also evident

that the anticipatory bail is rejected by the trial court only

on the ground that the vehicle belongs to this petitioner.

On the other hand, it is evident that the vehicle also

belongs to accused No.1. There is no previous history or

criminal antecedents of this petitioner to show that he is

involved in such transportation of food item meant for

public distribution. The alleged offences are not punishable

with death or imprisonment for life. Looking into the nature

of the allegations made against the petitioner and contents

of FIR and as no material is seized