MAYANK JAIN Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case diary is perused. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with offence punishable u/S. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act registered as Crime No.233/2016 by Police Station Kumbhraj, District Guna (M.P.).

(2.) Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with the aforesaid offences where allegation against the applicant u/S.3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act in regard to rice belonging to the Public Distribution Scheme which was seized from vehicle bearing no.MP08-GA-3786. The driver informed that he was asked to deliver the same to the applicant who happens to be dealer .

(3.) Offence alleged u/S. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been held to be non-bailable on account of punishment prescribed being more than three years and by taking into account the Scheduled to be the Code of Criminal Procedure, it has been held so in the decision of Hariom vs. State of MP, reported in [2011(1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 267] relevant portions of which are reproduced below :-