The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sanjay Sharma

Held

The Court held that no case was made out for the cancellation of bail. Regarding the first issue, the Court noted that the statement of the worker (PW/2) was recorded after the bail was granted, and this worker specifically denied preparing the invoice dated 17.10.2020 on the instruction of the non-applicant. Furthermore, there was no specific charge for the preparation or forgery of this invoice. Concerning the second issue, the Court observed that as per the FSL report, the seized chemical, Isopropyl alcohol, was not found in the dead bodies or viscera. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in MS. P. v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh and another (Criminal Appeal No.740 of 2022), which emphasizes that bail cancellation requires supervening circumstances or conduct of the accused post-grant of bail demonstrating it is no longer conducive to a fair trial. The Court found none of the enumerated circumstances for cancellation were met. Therefore, the petition seeking cancellation of bail was dismissed.

Facts

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to Sanjay Sharma, who is facing trial for offenses under the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sharma was employed as a manager at Imperial Commercial Industries. Following the deaths of 16 individuals due to spurious liquor, a search of the factory premises yielded 50 litres of Isopropyl alcohol. The prosecution alleged that the spurious liquor was prepared using spirit purchased from Imperial Chemicals. Sharma was granted bail by the High Court on January 4, 2021, based on submissions that an invoice for the sale of spirit was dated after the incident, and he lacked knowledge of the purchaser's intent. The State sought cancellation, alleging the company lacked a license to store and sell spirit and that a forged invoice was created. Sharma, in his reply, highlighted that a worker testified he did not prepare the invoice on Sharma's instructions and that the seized chemical was Isopropyl alcohol, while the deceased had consumed ethyl and methyl alcohol.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bail granted to the respondent/accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. should be cancelled on the grounds that the company lacked a license to store and sell spirit and that a forged invoice was created to shield the accused from prosecution. 2. Whether subsequent developments, specifically the FSL report indicating the absence of Isopropyl alcohol in the deceased and the testimony of a worker denying preparation of the invoice on the accused's instructions, warrant the cancellation of bail. Contentions of the Petitioner (State of Madhya Pradesh): The State argued that Imperial Chemical did not possess a license to store and sell spirit and that a forged invoice dated 17.10.2020 was prepared to avoid prosecution, implying no sale of chemical occurred from the factory. They also contended that the order granting bail was illegal or perverse. Contentions of the Respondent (Sanjay Sharma): The respondent argued that a worker testified he did not prepare the invoice on Sharma's instructions and that the FSL report found ethyl and methyl alcohol, not isopropyl alcohol, in the deceased. Reliance was placed on Abdul Basit Alias Raju and others v/s Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another (2014) 10 SCC 754, stating that cancellation of bail does not vest review power in the court that granted bail.