Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3007/2024 of BAHADUR SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGHON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3007 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BAHADUR SINGH S/O GOPILAL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGEKISHANPURA, SINGOLI, NEEMUCH (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI ABHISHEK RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
.
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION SINGOLI DISTT.NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATEGENERAL.
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This is SECOND application has been filed on behalf of the applicant forgrant of bail under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he isarrested in relating to FIR No.201/2022 dated (not mentioned) registered atPolice Station Singoli, District Neemuch (MP) for offence punishable underSections 8/15 and 25 of NDPS Act. The applicant is in custody since28.11.2022. Earlier, first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.
2. As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that 102 KG of poppy straw was recovered from possession of the applicant and co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that thecontraband was licensee because the license has been issued in the name offather of the applicant and the same was recovered within the radius of houseand their agriculture filed when the same was being transported to house fromthe agriculture filed. The applicant is in jail since 28.11.2022. The conclusion oftrial will take sufficient long time. Under these circumstances, counsel prays forgrant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the State has opposedthe prayer and prayed for its rejection. It is submitted that non-commercialquantity is involved in the matter, hence, he is not entitled for bail.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the factsand circumstances of the case so also looking to the custody period and thatthe father of the applicant is licensee for produce of contraband, I am of theview that it is a case, in which applicant may be released on bail. Consequently,without commenting on the merits of the case, first bail application underSection 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalfof applicant, stands allowed.
6. It is directed that applicantbe released on bail on his furnishing apersonal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trialCourt, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with acondition that he shall remain present before the concerned Court on all thedates fixed by it during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case ofbail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall becomeineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
amit
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)JUDGE