Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sitaram Meghwal vs Government Of India Through ... on 9 June, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
M.Cr.C. No.1414/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
M.Cr.C. No. 1414 of 2021
(Sitaram Meghwal S/o. Parthaji Meghwal V/s. Govt. of India through
Central Narcotics Bureau)
Date: 09.06.2021 :
Applicant by Shri Sandeep Mehta, Advocate.
Respondent/Govt. of India through Central Narcotics Bureau by
Shri Manoj Soni, Advocate.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties through video
conferencing.
ORDER
This is a repeat (3rd) application filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. by the applicant - Sitaram Mehgwal S/o. Parthaji Meghwal,
who is in custody since 29.8.2019 and facing trial in connection with
Crime No.3/2016 registered at Police Station Central Narcotics
Bureau, Kota, Rajasthan for the offence punishable under Section
8/21C, 8/22C and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drug Psychotropic Substances
(NDPS) Act..
The first application was dismissed vide order dated 21.1.2020
passed in M.Cr.C. No.53836/2019 because the judgment passed in the
case of Tofan Singh V/s. State of Tamil Nadu (CRA No.152/2013) has
been referred to the larger Bench on the issue that the statement
recorded u/s. 67 by the official of the NCB can be treated as
confessional statement or not. Thereafter, second application was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 4.8.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.22016/2020. The applicant has filed the present repeat (3rd)
application on the ground that the larger Bench has answered the issue
in the case of Tofan Singh V/s. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2020
SCC Online SC 882, hence the applicant is entitled to be released on
bail. The applicant has been implicated on the basis of statement of co-
accused Laxman Singh before the officials of the NCB. Apart from
- : 2 :-
M.Cr.C. No.1414/2021
the aforesaid statement, nothing incriminating material has been
collected against the applicant. Hence, the applicant deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/NCB, submits that from the possession of co-accused One
Kg. of Heroin and 13.600 Kg. of Alprazolam were recovered. The
effect of Section 67 is liable to considered after conclusion of the trial.
The judgment passed in the case of Tofan Singh (supra) has reached to
the Supreme Court after conviction in the trial. Therefore, at this stage,
scope of Section 67 cannot be considered. It is further submitted that
the applicant is an habitual offender. He has been convicted u/s. 8/18
of the NDPS Act and sentenced for a period three years and against the
said judgment he has preferred an CRA No. 1744/2021 before this
Court. Hence he is not entitled for bail.
After rejection of earlier two applications, there is only one
change in the circumstances i.e. judgment has been passed in the case
of Tofan Singh (supra) by the larger Bench of the apex Court. Not only
the statement u/s. 67 of the NDPS Act is against the applicant, but he is
an habitual offender under the NDPS Act and he has been convicted
also. Apart from this, one more case is pending against the applicant at
Mandsaur, which he has admitted in his statement u/s. 67 of the Act.
The seized quantity is a commercial quantity. The offence is serious in
nature. Hence, no case for grant of bail is made out.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2021.06.12 13:23:31 +05'30'
