Suresh Chandra @ Pappu vs State Of Mp.

Heard through video conferencing with the aid of case diary.

As declared by the petitioner, this is the first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

According to the prosecution case, on the direction of the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Petlawad Junior Supply Officer, Sub Division Petlawad Mr. Anand Kumar Chagod conducted a surprise inspection of Branch Petlawad of MP Warehousing and Logistics Corporation. On physical verification of the stock 1226 quintal wheat and 766.87 quintal rice was found access and 43 quintal salt was found less than the quantity entered in the stock register. It was further observed that the stock register was not maintained properly and was incomplete. The last entry was made on 17.08.2020. The Inspecting Officer was of the opinion that in connivance with the transporter, without delivering the food grains to the Fair Price Shops, the In-charge of the Centre Petlawad of the Corporation fabricated the fake challans of transporting the food grains from the Centre to the shops without actual transportation and delivery of the same to the concerned shops and thus, have misappropriated the public money.

Admittedly the petitioner is the Transporter of the Corporation.

The bail is pleaded on the grounds that the petitioner has neither committed any offences charged with nor has any direct or indirect association/connection with the charged offences. There is no evidence to substantiate the alleged conspiracy to commit an offence by the petitioner. He was only performing and fulfilling the obligation of transporting the supplies pursuant to the work order dated 24.06.2019. He has been falsely implicated by both the respondents; the police and the complainant of the cases due to unreasonable and unwarranted suspicion and is being made a scapegoat for the alleged offence. He was neither entrusted nor was duty bound to check or inspect the supplying commodities while transporting the same. Furthermore, the records of quantity of commodities were also not prepared or maintained by him.

The only allegation against the petitioner is of hatching conspiracy with the other accused persons for causing loss but there is no evidence to shows that the petitioner has conspired with the other accused persons. There is also no evidence to show that any goods entrusted to the petitioner did not reach to the destination. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has committed criminal breach of Trust; and even if it is, there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record to support the allegation.

As far as charge under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is concerned, there appears to be no order passed by the central government which would said to have been contravened or violated by the petitioner in order to attract the penalty prescribed under section 7 thereof. Hences, the said charge is squarely baseless and meritless.

The offences charged against the petitioner are tribal by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and not punishable with the severe sentence. The petitioner is neither connected nor involved with the said offences in any manner. His custodial interrogation is not required. He is ready to co-operate with the investigation. He is permanent resident of District Jhabua. There is no likelihood of his escaping. He is ready to produce adequate security and shall abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. He is 56 year old of age and has been detected covid-19 positive. His life is at danger. Therefore, he may be granted bail.

The prosecution has opposed the bail.

I have considered the rival contention of the parties and have perused the records.

In reply to the query raised before the learned Government Advocate / Public Prosecutor, it is fairly admitted that there is no document available in the case diary to show that any consignment assigned to the Transporter did not reach to the concerned shop and that accept the assumption of the inspector, there is no evidence available in the record to support the contention of misappropriation of food grains by the transporter or to show that any challan is fabricated by the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor also could not point out any payment made to the Transporter, without transportation of food grains. In such a situation, the case for granting bail is made out; therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed.

It is directed that the Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments on frivolous grounds to protract the trial;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing truth before the Court;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activity;

(iv) In case of his involvement in any other criminal activity or breach of any other aforesaid conditions, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.