Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4607/2024 of BAJRANGLAL 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 INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4607 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BAJRANGLAL S/O RAMNARAYAN DANGI, AGED ABOUT34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O: PATELMOHALLA KHAIRANA P.S. PIDAWA, DIST. JHALAWAR(RAJASTHAN)
(MR. ANKUR PASTOR - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH P.S. SHAMGARH, DIST. MANDSAUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(MS. VARSHA SINGH THAKUR - 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
Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant for grant ofregular bail relating to Crime No.33/2023 registered at P.S. Shamgarh, DistrictMandsaur (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 8/15,25 and 29 of NDPS Act. He is in jail since 21.01.2023.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 21.10.2023, during routine checkingof vehicles, police party intercepted a Car bearing Registration No.RJ-20-CE-8247 driven by present applicant and stopped the said vehicle. During search 75
kg poppy straw has been recovered from possession of present applicant.Accordingly, case has been registered against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocentperson and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Applicant is in jail since21.01.2023, meaning thereby, he is suffering jail incarceration for about oneyear. Two prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court andboth of them have turned hostile and have not supported the case ofprosecution. Final conclusion of trial will take considerable long time. Hence,he prays that applicant be released on bail.
4. Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent/State opposes the bailapplication and prays for its rejection.
5. Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the court below.
6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation as also taking note of the fact that seized quantity ofcontraband is more than the commercial quantity, therefore, specific bar underSection 37 of NDPS Act is attracted in the instant case; two prosecutionwitnesses of seizure and other proceedings have been examined, butinvestigating officer yet to be examined.
7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.
8. Accordingly, the present bail application filed under section 439 ofCr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
Anushree
(ANIL VERMA)JUDGE