Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/53665/2023 of PAPPU @ PRAMOD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53665 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PAPPU @ PRAMOD S/O RAJARAM CHOUHAN, AGEDABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O GRAMBANEDIYA DEPALPUR, DISTT. INDORE (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI NILESH PATEL - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION - NARCOTICS CELL, DISTT INDORE (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....NON APPLICANT
(BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission 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
1. This is the 5th application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.77/2020 registered atPolice Station Narcotics Cell - District Indore (M.P.) for the offence underSection 8, 21 of NDPS Act.
2. Applicant's second bail application has been dismissed on merit videorder dated 11.2.2022 passed in MCRC No.1235/2022, wherein it has beenconsidered that the seized quantity of contraband is more than the commercialquantity and applicant does not deserve for bail. Later on, his third and fourth bail applications have been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew theprayer after examination of the material witnesses before the trial Court.
3. Thereafter, applicant has preferred this repeated 5th bail application onthe ground that the applicant is facing trial since 20.12.2020. As per the statusreport received from the trial Court, prosecution has examined only 3 witnessesin 4 years. Final conclusion of trial will take considerable long time. Hence, heprays that applicant be released on bail.
4. Per-contra, learned GA for respondent/State opposes the bailapplication and prays for its rejection.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.
6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the trial Court hasexamined three witnesses. Rohit Chandra (PW-3) has deposed against thepresent applicant. In the present case 13 kg 200 grams Codeine Syrup has beenrecovered from the possession of the present applicant, which is more than thecommercial quantity. Looking to the gravity of the offence, this Court is notinclined to grant bail to the applicant.
7. Therefore, this repeated 5th bail application is also dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
trilok
(ANIL VERMA)JUDGE