1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2592 OF 2010 Sampat Namdeo Ghorpade ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ......... Mr.Girish Agrawal, for applicant. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP for respondent State. ......... CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. (VACATION COURT) DATE : 25th MAY, 2010. P.C. : This application is for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”). The F.I.R. was lodged on 17 th April, 2010 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). 2] Heard Mr.Girish Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.P.S.Hingorani, learned APP who is instructed by Mr.Rajendra Kadam, API of the concerned police station, who is present in the court. 3] Mr.Agrawal, in the first place, submits that name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. Secondly, it is submitted that the offences punishable 2592-10.sxw 2 under Section 3 and 7 of the Act are bailable. In support of this submission, he invited my attention to Section 10-A of the Act which reads as under:- 10-A.Offences to be cognizable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in [the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable. Mr.Agrawal further submits that the offences under the Act were non bailable for a period of 15 years with effect from 1 st September, 1982. Initially, the word “cognizable” and the words “non bailable” were inserted by the Act 18 of 1981 as amended by Act 34 of 1993 for a further period of 15 years. As of today, the offences under the Act are cognizable and bailable. He also invited my attention to the decision of the learned Single Judge of the M.P.High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of M.P., 2001 Cri.L.J. 1306. 4] On the other hand, Mr.Hingorani, learned APP, submits that the offence is serious in nature and is against the society and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application for anticipatory bail. 5] After considering the provisions of the Act and, in particular, Section 10-A of the Act as also the judgment of M.P.High Court in case of Dinesh Kumar Dubey (Supra), one fact that imerges is that the offences under the Act are bailable. This aspect is not disputed by learned APP. If that be so, the 2592-10.sxw 3 application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. would not maintainable. However, taking into consideration that the police may not knowing about this provisions and the interpretation, I pass the following order:- (a) In the event of arrest of the applicant under the offence punishable under the Act, the police shall release the applicant on bail as the offence is bailable. In the alternative, the applicant may appear before the Judicial Magistrate F.C., 9 th Court, Nashik along with a copy of this order and furnish the bail to the satisfaction of the Court. (b) Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] 2592-10.sxw