Ravi @ Ravendra Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 9145 MP

                                     1

       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH



                      M.Cr.C. No.56527/2021
              (Ravi @ Ravendra Soni Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh )



Jabalpur, Dated :22.12.2021.

      Shri Ajeet Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri D.D.Bhave, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail.

The applicant is in custody since 18.05.2021 in connection with Crime No. 404/2021 registered at P.S.-Kotwali, District Shahdol (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 21 & 22 of NDPS Act and Section 5/13 of M.P.Drugs Control Act.

As per prosecution case, 500 tablets of Alprazolam, 300 tablets of Nitrazepam and 60 bottles of Onrex cough syrup have been seized for the possession of applicant and other co-accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that co- accused Mrigendra Singh Gond @ Mani has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 22.11.2021 in M.Cr.C.No.28019/2021. It is stated that the case of the applicant is similar to the case of co-accused who has already been granted bail. It is stated that provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory have not been complied with by the police. He submits that it was a composite notice under Section 50 that was given to all the accused persons in which the signatures were taken. Hence, on the ground of parity the application may be allowed.

Learned Panel Lawyer, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and prayed for rejection of the same. However, he has fairly submitted that co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in aforesaid M.Cr.C.

In a similar case, this Court vide order dated 02.03.2021 in M.Cr.C.No.98/2021 (Dharmendra Tiwari @ Golu Tiwar vs. The State of M.P.), after relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand and another (2014) 5 SCC 345 has held that the consent of the accused persons to be searched by the Investigating Officer and not by the Gazetted Officer, must be expressed in the said notice by each accused and in the absence of such expressed consent, their consent cannot be inferred.

Considering the parity, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Nandita Dubey)

Judge jitin

Digitally signed by JITIN KUMAR CHOURASIA Date: 2021.12.22 17:36:29 +05'30'