Dismissed

Jaagrit Prabhat Mishra v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh HC18 Feb 2020MCRC/7204/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, President of a cooperative society, was arrested for allegedly impersonating the Central Government and BPPI using the State emblem and Minister photos to defraud public funds.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected

Jaagrit Prabhat Mishra Vs the State of Madhya… — Cheating and Forgery | Madhya Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

¶2

M.Cr.C.No.7204/2020

¶3

(JAAGRIT PRABHAT MISHRA VS. THE STATE OF M.P.)

¶4

¶5

Jabalpur, Dated : 18/02/2020

¶6

Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Tanvi Khare, counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Shri Mahendra Choubey, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

¶8

Shri Sourabh Sthapak, learned counsel for the objector.

¶9

Heard with the aid of case diary.

¶10

This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as applicant Jaagrit Prabhat Mishra apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.67/2020 registered at Police Station Bagsewania, District-Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC, under Section 66C, 66-D of the Information Technology Act 2002 and under Section 3/4/7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.

¶11

On 23/12/2019, Dheeraj Sharma, General Manager of Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertaking of India (B.P.P.I.), lodged a written complaint at Police Station Bagsewania, District-Bhopal, (M.P.) averring that Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Jan Aushadhi Pariyojana which is an important, scheme of the Government of India, is operated by the Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertakings of India (B.P.P.I.), established under the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals, Fertilizers. During a commercial campaign in Bhopal, his media team informed him that some anti-social elements were parallelly running the business like Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertaking of India (B.P.P.I). On that, Officers of Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertaking of India (B.P.P.I.) inquired about the matter. In the enquiry, it was found that Business activities were being conducted by the applicant in the name of Jan Aushadhi Sangh, similar to the activities conducted by BPPI. A website has also been created by the Sangh which displays the State Emblem of India, which creates the impression that this website and the Jan Aushadhi Sangh belongs to the Government of India and the said website is the website of the Cooperative Department of Madhya Pradesh State Government. In the said website,

¶12

¶13

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

¶14

M.Cr.C.No.7204/2020

¶15

(JAAGRIT PRABHAT MISHRA VS. THE STATE OF M.P.)

¶16

pictures of other ministers including the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh State Government have also been displayed. The illegal activities conducted by the Manager of Jan Aushadhi Sangh are related to public health. Such illegal activities can harm innocent people by cheating and selling them counterfeit medicines, so action should be taken against the applicant. On that, police registered Crime No.67/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC, under Section 66-C, 66-D of the Information Technology Act 2002 and under Section 3/4/7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 against the applicant. The applicant apprehends his arrest in the crime.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is further submitted that the applicant is the President of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Aushadhi Marketing Federation Limited and that Federation is registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the aim is to provide medicines and medical equipment to the general public at a low price. For that purpose, the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Aushadhi Marketing Federation Limited also took a drug license and also opened one chemist shop at Industrial Area, J.K. Road, Bhopal. The Drug Inspector inspected that shop and found that the applicant validly ran that shop, so no offence is made out against the applicant because the applicant is running said shop after obtaining all requisite permission. Even otherwise at the most only offences under Sections 66-C, 66-D of the Information Technology Act 2002 and under Section 3/4/7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 are made out against the applicant, which are bailable. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the complaint was filed by the Manager of BPPI company and not by any person claiming that applicant committed fraud with him. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant committed fraud with anybody by showing emblem (Ashoka Chakra) or using name of BPPI, so no offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be

¶18

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.7204/2020

¶19

(JAAGRIT PRABHAT MISHRA VS. THE STATE OF M.P.)

¶20

¶21

ruined. Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for anticipatory bail. In this regard, he also placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in AIR (2009) 8 SCC 751.

¶22

Learned counsels for the respondent/State as well as objector opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant registered the society in the name of M.P. Rajya Sehkari Jan Aushadhi Vipran Sangh Maryadit. A website has also been created by that Sangh, which displays the pictures of ministers including the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh State Government to create the impression that this website and the Jan Aushadhi Sangh belongs to the State Government and also displays State Emblem of India (Ashoka Chakra), and the name of Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertakings of India to create the impression that this website and the Jan Aushadhi Sangh is affiliated with Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertakings of India and Central Government. While BPPI did not give any permission to the applicant to run the medical shop under BPPI. The M.P. Rajya Sahkari Jan Aushadhi Vipran Sangh Maryadit is neither affiliated with the State Government nor with the Central Government. They further submitted that the M.P. Rajya Sahkari Jan Aushadhi Vipran Sangh Maryadit established by the applicant also procured a huge amount of money in the name of allotting generic medical stores under the Government of India and BPPI. Applicant in connivance with other people who are also part of the organization formed by him use the State Emblem as a tool for making the common man believe that the M.P. Rajya Sahkari Jan Aushadhi Vipran Sangh Maryadit is working for the Government of India and induced them to invest money for distributing medical stores. It has also came to the knowledge of BPPI that the applicant is also operating account in the MP Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit TT Nagar Bhopal in which he has induced many people to deposit the money only with an intention to deceive them and an investigation is going on in this regard, so applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶23

The fact of the case Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of

¶24

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

¶25

M.Cr.C.No.7204/2020

¶26

(JAAGRIT PRABHAT MISHRA VS. THE STATE OF M.P.)

¶27

¶28

Bihar and Another ( supra ) upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the applicant do not match with the present case. In that case first appellant sold the disputed land to appellant no.2. The complainant filed a complaint against both of the appellants claiming himself the owner of said land. In that case Hon'ble Apex Court held “If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such a complaint.” While in this case the police registered crime against the applicant and it is alleged that applicant got the society registered in the name of M.P. Rajya Sahakari Jan Aushadhi Vipran Sangh Maryadit. A website has also been created by that Sangh, which displays the pictures of Ministers including the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh State Government to create the impression that this website and the Jan Aushadhi Sangh belongs to the State Government and also displays State Emblem of India (Ashoka Chakra), and the name of Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertakings of India to create the impression that this website and the Jan Aushadhi Sangh is affiliated to Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertakings of India and Central Government. So, that judgment does not assist the applicant.

¶29

It is also alleged that applicant in connivance with other people who are also part of the organization formed by him use the State Emblem as a tool for making the common man believe that the M.P. Rajya Sahkari Jan Aushadhi Vipran Sangh Maryadit is working for the Government of India and inducing them to invest money for allotting medical stores. Investigation is going on in this regard, so this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶30

Hence, this anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶31

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge

¶32

vs/ sarathe

¶33

Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Date: 2020.02.19 17:16:32 +05'30'

Jaagrit Prabhat Mishra v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaagrit Prabhat Mishra v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases