Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1447 MP

1                                     M.Cr.C. No.16925/2021 & M.Cr.C. No.13718/2021



    The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore

                       M.Cr.C. No.16925/2021
                        Rahul Vs. State of M.P.

                      M.Cr.C. No.13718/2021
                    Manoj Nadewal Vs. State of MP

Indore, Dated:09.04.2021

       Heard through video conferencing.

       Shri. Jitendra Bajpayee, learned counsel for applicant Rahul
and Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for applicant Manoj
Nadewal.

       Shri Rajwardhan Gawade,          learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.

Regard being had to the similitude of the matters, on the joint request of the parties, matters were analogously heard and decided by common order.

This is I bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C arising out of Crime No.4/2021 under Section 8/20 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Kishanganj, Mhow, distt. Indore. The applicant Rahul is in custody since 1/1/2021 and applicant Manoj Nadewal is in custody since 30/12/2020.

Learned counsel for applicants submits that as per prosecution story 7 kg 500 gm "ganja" is allegedly recovered from the joint possession of three persons including applicants. A joint memorandum u/S.50(1) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was prepared by the respondent which runs contrary to the judgment reported in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand & another (2014) 5 SCC 345. Applicant Manoj Nadewal has one criminal record whereas other applicant does not 2 M.Cr.C. No.16925/2021 & M.Cr.C. No.13718/2021

have any. The conclusion of trial in this pandemic era will take time. Challan has been filed. Applicants may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer is opposed by learned P.L, but he did not dispute that there is no criminal record of applicant Rahul. On a specific query from the bench, learned PL fairly submits that a common notice u/S.50(1) was given to all the accused persons. The apex Court in Parmanand (supra) opined as under:-

"17. In our opinion, a joint communication of the right available under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act to the accused would frustrate the very purport of Section 50. Communication of the said right to the person who is about to be searched is not an empty formality. It has a purpose. Most of the offences under the NDPS Act carry stringent punishment and, therefore, the prescribed procedure has to be meticulously followed. These are minimum safeguards available to an accused against the possibility of false involvement. The communication of this right has to be clear, unambiguous and individual. The accused must be made aware of the existence of such a right. This right would be of little significance if the beneficiary thereof is not able to exercise it for want of knowledge about its existence. A joint communication of the right may not be clear or unequivocal. It may create confusion. It may result in diluting the right. We are, therefore, of the view that the accused must be individually informed that under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, he has a right to be searched before a nearest gazetted officer or before a nearest Magistrate. Similar view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Paramjit Singh and the Bombay High Court in Dharamveer Lekhram Sharma meets with our approval."

(emphasis supplied) Considering the nature of accusation, judgment of Supreme Court in Parmanand (supra) coupled with the fact that conclusion of trial in this pandemic era will take time and without expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicants on bail.

3 M.Cr.C. No.16925/2021 & M.Cr.C. No.13718/2021

Resultantly, the present application stands allowed.

It is directed that the applicants Rahul and Manoj Nadewal be released from custody on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh) with one separate solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the Trial Court as and when required. They shall abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

c.c as per rules.

(SUJOY PAUL) Judge

vm

Digitally signed by VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2021.04.09 17:35:27 -07'00'