Babulesh Gupta vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the evidence available on record, concluded that no case was made out for the grant of anticipatory bail. The specific reasoning for this conclusion, beyond the general statement, is not detailed in the provided text. The operative direction was to dismiss the application, meaning the applicant's request for anticipatory bail was rejected. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Babulesh Gupta, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 1387/2024 registered at Police Station-Waidhan, District-Singrauli. The case involves the illegal loading and transportation of approximately 6.5 tonnes of iron scrap, valued at about two lakh rupees. The vehicle carrying the scrap was stopped, and the driver, Keshav Prasad Dwivedi, could not produce proper documentation. The driver stated the scrap was loaded from Bhanu Singh alias Ravindra Singh of Aditya Enterprises. Upon verification, the scrap was not found to belong to M/s Probuild Engineering, as suggested by a presented bill, and was suspected to be stolen. Consequently, a case was registered under various sections of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) and Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant claims innocence, stating his vehicle was used for transporting biscuits and he agreed to transport scrap from Bhanu Singh with a GST bill to avoid financial loss. He asserts he purchased the scrap via mobile phone and provided his own bills, while the forged bill was presented by Bhanu Singh.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, considering the allegations of involvement in the transportation of suspected stolen iron scrap and the presentation of a potentially forged bill before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contends he is innocent and falsely implicated as the owner of the vehicle. He claims he agreed to transport iron scrap from Bhanu Pratap alias Ravinandan Singh of M/s Kritika Aditya Enterprises to avoid financial loss from an empty return journey, with the understanding that a proper GST bill would be provided. He asserts he purchased the scrap via mobile phone from Bhanu Singh and provided his own bills, which are not forged. The applicant argues that the forged bill was submitted by Bhanu Singh, not him, and that the seized scrap is not reported stolen. He also submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police seeking a fair investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent-State opposes the anticipatory bail application.