Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anoop Tiwari vs The State Of M.P on 30 July, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-32321-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-32321-2021
(ANOOP TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF M.P)
Jabalpur, Dated : 30-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, learned PL for the respondent-State.
Case diary perused.
This is the fourth application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail. Applicant Anoop Tiwari was arrested on 12/01/2019 in
connection with Crime No.29/2019 registered at Police Station Waidhan,
District Singrauli for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20-B of the
NDPS Act and Section 146, 196, 3, 181, 115, 190(2), 77, 177, 39, 192(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act.
Earlier temporary bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed
o n merit by this Court vide order dated 15/05/2019 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.17495/2019 and second & third bail applications were rejected on
merits b y this Court vide orders dated 27.09.2019 & 07.11.2020 passed in
M.Cr.C.Nos.36503/2019 & 15510/2020.
As per the prosecution case, on 12/01/2019 on the information of the
informant that some persons were coming to Waidhan from Bargawan side
via Parsona by Scorpio jeep, carrying illegal ganja, Sub-Inspector Abhishek
Pandey, Police Station Baidhan, District Singrauli along with other members
of Police force went to Parsona and waited for the said jeep. At 02:25 A.M.
he saw one red coloured scorpio jeep without a number plate coming from
Parsona side. On that he tried to stop that jeep, but the driver of the said Jeep
did not stop the Jeep. Abhishek Pandey chased the said jeep on bike. The
persons travelling in the said jeep also fired at him. He caught the said jeep
near village Parsona. On that he found that co-accused Shailendra Singh
Tomar was driving the said jeep and applicant Anoop Tiwari and co-accused
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Anish Pandey were traveling in the jeep and he arrested the applicant and co-
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.07.30 17:41:35 IST
2 MCRC-32321-2021
accused Shailendra Singh and Anish Pandey with the help of other members
of Police force and also seized 21 kg. of ganja from the said jeep, which was
being illegally carried by the applicant and co-accused in that jeep.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not
committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the case. The
applicant has no criminal past. Although, earlier bail applications filed by
applicant were dismissed on merit, but thereafter statements of Ramnaresh
Shah (PW/1), Chhotelal Shah (PW/2), Pankaj Singh (PW/3) & Shyam Sundar
(PW/4) have been recorded by the trial Court. They did not depose anything
against the applicant. He is in custody since 12/01/2019. The charge-sheet has
been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the
applicant be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and
submitted that the applicant was illegally carrying 21 Kg. ganja in the jeep,
which comes under the commercial quantity. Three other offences are also
registered against the applicant. Even, bail application of co-accused Anish
Pandey has been rejected by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated
06.03.2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.1788/2020. Earlier bail applications filed
by the applicant were dismissed on merit, thereafter there is no change in
circumstance. So, looking to the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, he
should not be released on bail.
Earlier temporary bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed
o n merit by this Court vide order dated 15/05/2019 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.17495/2019 and second & third bail applications were rejected on
merits b y this Court vide orders dated 27.09.2019 & 07.11.2020 passed in
M.Cr.C.Nos.36503/2019 & 15510/2020 and thereafter, there has been no
change in the circumstances, except the custody period. Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through
its Director, (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail cannot be granted solely on the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.07.30 17:41:35 IST
3 MCRC-32321-2021
defence. Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC
673 observed "It is true that successive bail applications are permissible
under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the
circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review
of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has
been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa
[(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments."
It also appears from the record that Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the
bail application of the co-accused Anish Pandey vide order dated 06.03.2020
passed in SLP (Crl.) No.1788/2020. Statements of other material witnesses
have to be recorded by the trial Court. So, looking to the allegation, gravity of
offence and provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
as
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.07.30 17:41:35 IST
