Allowed

Suresh Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2019BAIL/31839/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for a charge of preparing and selling adulterated food items, the court granted bail to the applicant (a gate keeper) by personal bond and two sureties after six months of incarceration, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties each of like amount, subject to conditions regarding non-tampering, cooperation, and non-recurrence of crime.

Suresh Mishra Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31839 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui, Gaurav Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This is the second bail application filed by the present applicant. The first bail application filed by the present applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14478 of 2019 has been rejected by this Bench vide order dated 30.04.2019.

¶7

This second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Suresh Mishra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 44 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 272, 273 I.P.C., Police StationGovind Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar , during pendency of trial.

¶8

The first information report was lodged under Section 419, 420, 272 and 273 I.P.C. Police Station- Govind Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar by the Inspector Shri Mohd. Jainuddin Ansari of Special Task Force, Kanpur Nagar on 11th February, 2019, at 20:30 hrs, against five persons, namely, Suresh Mishra (applicant herein) and the other co-accused, namely Suraj Mehta, Sanjay Darwani, Arvind Singh and Abhishek Kapoor, alleging therein, that the Police has been informed that in the Sangam Food Factory situate at Govind Pur, with the help of adulterated chemical, indigenous liquid butter (deshi ghee) and sesame (teel) oil were being made, which was causing dis-function on the human body. On the said information, Personnel of Special Task Force came to the factory and saw that RPO chemical were being boiled and packaging was being done by labours with the help of machines. No scent was coming from the boiling chemical, whereas, from the packing material, scent of indigenous liquid butter was coming. After mixing adulterated chemicals in the soyabean oil, sesame oil was being made and packaging of the same was done. Since, the matter related to food stuff, information was given to the team of F.S.D.A., Kanpur. On the said information, the officers/officials of F.S.D.A. were present including the Food Security Officer, Kanpur. After stopping the packaging work, a joint investigation was initiated. Suraj Mehta - coaccused, who was partner of the said factory, was interrogated and he told that Sangam Food Product was a partnership firm and the main partner of the said firm was Sanjay Darwani and other details regarding registration of the said firm and licence of repacker and wholesaler were also disclosed. On seeing the Police, said Sanjay Darwani escaped. Since, the notification/information was found to be correct, Suresh Mishra, Gate Keeper (applicant herein) and Arvind Singh- co-accused, Supervisor of the said firm were taken into custody. When the accountant, namely, Abhishek Kapoor was searched, it was found that with the owner of the firm, he also escaped taking along with with him necessary documents. On pointing out of one of the partners Suraj Mehta, Police Personnels as well as the

¶9

officers/officials of Food and Security Department have searched the first floor of firm, where duplicate indegenous liquid butters, duplicate sesame oils, adulterated chemicals, soybean oil in various quantities as well as wrappers of various brands, printing machine (for printing batch, manufacturing date and printing), turner machine etc. were recovered. On the interrogation, Suraj Mehta told that one liter of chemical (which was found in four drums), when mixed in 220 liters of soyabean oil appeared like sesame oil. By understanding it as sesame oil, people used the same and bought it on the rate of sesame oil.

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent. The applicant was only a gate-keeper at Sangam Food Factory situate at Govind Pur, from where adulterated food items are alleged to have been recovered. He has no concern with the same within the four corners of the alleged offence. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that initially the first information report has been lodged under Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. along with other charging Sections and seeing that the punishment provided under Sections 272 and 273 is for life imprisonment along with fine, this Court has rejected the first bail application of the applicant. However, after completion of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the concerned Investigating Officer has found that no case punishable under Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. in respect of preparation of adulterated food items, is made out against the applicant and he has submitted the chargesheet under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. only against the applicant. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. are not applicable in the case of the applicant, as the firm has licence for packaging the indigenous liquid butter and sell the same on wholesale rates. There is no independent or public witness on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. The applicant has no criminal history except in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant is in jail since 11th February, 2019. As such the applicant has undergone more than six months of incarceration.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions that :-

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by

¶14

intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶15

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Priya

Suresh Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmnarain Pal Vs State of U.P.

Mukul Vs State of U.P.

Ram Vishal @ Raju Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ashok @ Pappu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Mehta Vs State of U.P.