Narendra Rathod vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court, after perusing the material on record including the case diary and without commenting on the merits of the case, found sufficient grounds to grant anticipatory bail. The reasoning appears to be based on the applicant's submission that he was merely providing vehicles on rent to agriculturists who had validly purchased fertilizers, supported by bills and a GST number. The applicant's contention regarding the nature of the offense (punishable for less than seven years) and the procedural requirement under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. likely weighed in the decision. The Court directed that in the event of his arrest, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with a solvent surety, subject to compliance with Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The applicant was also directed to appear before the investigating officer as and when required and cooperate with the investigation.

Facts

This case involves an application for anticipatory bail filed by Narendra Rathod, a transporter, who apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No. 348/2021 registered at Police Station Pati, District Barwani. The applicant was implicated for offenses under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. The prosecution alleged that on December 16, 2021, two vehicles transporting fertilizers without a valid permit were intercepted. The applicant was also reportedly without Form O for transportation, violating Section 8 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. During the investigation, it was alleged that the fertilizer was owned by the applicant. The applicant contended that he provided his vehicles on rent to agriculturists who had purchased fertilizers from a licensed shop in Maharashtra, producing valid bills with a GST number. He argued that the offense was punishable for less than seven years, necessitating notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. as per the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of transporting fertilizers without a valid permit and Form O, and the alleged ownership of the fertilizer by the applicant? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. - There is no direct or indirect involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime. - The applicant provided vehicles on rent to agriculturists who purchased fertilizers from a licensed shop in Maharashtra, evidenced by proper bills and a GST number (27ASDPB3143N1ZT). - The agriculturists were not illegally transporting fertilizers, and there is no bar on purchasing fertilizers from other states. - The offense is punishable for less than seven years, requiring the investigating agency to issue a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. as per the Apex Court's guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. Respondent's Arguments: - The State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.