Dhanesh Mishra vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court, after considering the arguments advanced by both parties, was inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The primary reasoning for granting bail appears to stem from the applicant's claim of being a businessman with no criminal history, whose warehouse was allegedly used by a co-accused without his knowledge. The Court found sufficient grounds to grant bail, despite the reliance on the co-accused's memorandum by the prosecution. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 80,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the trial court, and to abide by the conditions under Section 437(3) of the CrPC. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

This is a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Dhanesh Mishra, who has been incarcerated since November 18, 2021. The applicant is accused in Crime No. 213/2021 registered at Police Station Satlapur, District Raisen, for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case is based on the memorandum of a co-accused. The applicant claims to own a manufacturing unit and a warehouse, and his company has ongoing business transactions with the complainant company. He argues he was made an accused due to a misconception, as the stolen material was allegedly stored in his warehouse by the main accused, an employee of the complainant, without the applicant's knowledge. The applicant has no prior criminal record.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 213/2021 registered at Police Station Satlapur, District Raisen, for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC, considering the allegations and the evidence on record. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant has been implicated solely based on the memorandum of a co-accused. He emphasized that the applicant is a legitimate businessman with his own manufacturing unit and warehouse, and his company has continuous business dealings with the complainant. The presence of stolen goods in his warehouse was allegedly due to the actions of the main accused, an employee of the complainant, without the applicant's knowledge or consent. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Documents were filed to support the applicant's GST registration and business transactions. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the bail application, relying on the memorandum of the co-accused, and submitted that the applicant is not entitled to bail in view of this statement.