Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil @ Pinki @ Mustafa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2021
Author: Arun Kumar Sharma
1 MCRC-58459-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 58459 of 2021
(ANIL @ PINKI @ MUSTAFA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 15-12-2021
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Om Prakash Patel, learned P.L. for the respondent / State.
Heard.
This is first application filed by the applicant/accused under Section
439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, who has been arrested on 03.03.2020 by
Police Station - Sabhapur, District - Satna (MP) in connection with Crime
No.33/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 of the
N.D.P.S Act, 34(2) of Excise Act, 25/27 of the Arms Act, 11/13 of A.D. Act
and 5/13 of Drugs Control Act.
According to case of the prosecution, acting on a tip-off received from
an informant, ASI, Police Station Sabhapur searched the house of the
applicant and seized 16 box of country made liquor containing 48 quarters in
each box; 70 bottles of cough syrup of different companies and 130 strips of
different companies containing 28 tables in each strip, from the house of the
applicant, for which, he was not having any valid license and authority.
It is contended by the applicant that joint notice of personal search was
given to the applicant and co-accused. It is submitted that joint notice is
contrary to the provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act. It is submitted that the
Apex Court in the case of State of Rajsthan Vs. Parmanand and another
reported in 2014(5)SCC 345 has held that the joint communication of the
right not found sufficient for compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in similar situation Co-
Ordinate Bench of this Court has also granted the benefit of bail to other
accused person vide order dated 10.12.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.46991/2021. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case with a
view to spite the applicant as the applicant filed a writ petition against the
police personnel. Further, the ingredients of Excise Act, Arms Act and AD
2 MCRC-58459-2021
Act are totally missing in the present case as no case is made out. He is in
custody since 03.03.2020 without any rhyme and reason. Charge sheet has
been filed. Trial will take time. Further custody of the applicant is not
warranted. Hence, he be released on bail.
Learned PL has vehemently opposed the application by contending
that the applicant along with other co-accused persons assaulted the police
personnel and he is a habitual offender and as many as 25 criminal cases of
similar nature and other nature have already been registered against him.
Under these circumstances, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled
with the fact that the applicant is a habitual offender and role attributed to the
applicant in the alleged incident and seriousness of the offence, this Court is
of the considered view that at the stage of granting bail to an accused like the
applicant detailed appreciation of the evidence is not required. Therefore, the
judgment relied by the applicant is not applicable in the present case. Further,
a long criminal history is legging behind the present applicant showing his
conduct and involvement in the alleged offences. There is sufficient material
available against the applicant connecting him with the crime. Hence, the bail
application filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed.
CC as per rules.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE
Jp/-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR
PAROUHA
Date: 2021.12.15 16:24:28 IST
