Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3184/2024 of SURENDRA RATHORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGATON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3184 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SURENDRA RATHORE S/O SHRI BHAGWANDASRATHORE, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:LABOUR R/O MAU P.S. BEOHARI DISTRICT SHAHDOL(MADHYA PRADESH).
(BY SHRI AKHIL SINGH - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION PAPAUDH DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYAPRADESH).
(BY SHRI AKSHAY NAMDEO - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENT
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
This is the first bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 ofCode of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.183/2023, registered at Police Station-Papaudh, District Shahdol (M.P.) for theoffence punishable under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S Act.
2. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submitted that applicant isinnocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted thatcontraband has been seized from joint possession. Applicant is in jail since07.09.2023. In these circumstances, applicant be released on bail.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed thebail application. It is submitted that offence is under Special Act and there ispresumption against the applicant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, bail applicationfiled by the applicant is dismissed. Applicant is at liberty to file repeatapplication after examination of independent seizure witnesses.
vkt
(VISHAL DHAGAT)JUDGE