Anil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2327 MP

                                      1
                                                          MCRC No.18026/2021

         High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
                     Bench at Indore
       Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.18026/2021
                           (Anil s/o Babulalji Bagri
                                     Versus
                         The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 14.06.2021
      Hearing through Video Conferencing.

      Mr. Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Ms. Drishti Rawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /

State of Madhya Pradesh.

Investigating Officer of the case - Mr. Amit Soni, Inspector,

Police Station Kotwali, Mandsaur, District Mandsaur (MP) has

marked his presence before this Court through Video Conferencing.

They are heard. Perused the case diary / challan papers.

This is first application under Section 439 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973. The applicant is implicated in connection

with Crime No.450/2019 registered at Police Station Sitamau,

District Mandsaur (MP) for offence punishable under Section 8 read

with Sections 15, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the Act).

The applicant is in custody since 22.07.2020.

The allegation against the applicant is that he was also

involved in the aforesaid offence wherein a quantity 8 quintals and

60 kilograms of poppy straw was recovered from vehicle - pickup

Bolero bearing registration number MP-09 GF-7502.

MCRC No.18026/2021

It is alleged against the applicant that Bolero pickup vehicle

bearing registration number MP-09 GF-7502 from which a quantity

of 8 quintal and 60 kilograms of poppy straw was seized on

03.12.2019, two persons ran away from the spot, one of which is

alleged to be the present applicant and the other one was Mukesh

Nat.

In the present case, learned counsel for the applicant has

contented that the applicant has been falsely implicated on the basis

of an agreement dated 16.01.2019 allegedly executed between the

applicant and one, his brother-in-law whereas the applicant has not

even the signatory of the said document.

Counsel has submitted that the original owner of the vehicle is

Jitendra Bagri, who has been given a clean chit by the Police in the

case where 8 quintals and 60 kilograms of poppy straw has been

seized from Bolero bearing registration number MP-09 GF-7502.

On the last date of hearing, this Court has also directed the

Investigating Officer to remain present to explain as to why the

registered owner of the vehicle has not been made as an accused in

the present case; and Investigating Officer Shri Amit Soni, who is

present through Video Conferencing, has informed that as per the

prosecution, the Police is satisfied that the aforesaid agreement dated

16.01.2019 is validly executed between the applicant and Jitendra

Bagri on an e-stamp. Shri Soni has also submitted that the witnesses

MCRC No.18026/2021

of the aforesaid agreement have also deposed that it was executed on

the said date only. Hence, they have not made Jitendra Bagri as an

accused.

From the impugned order of the trial Court, it appears that the

applicants plea before the said Court was that he had already

transferred the said vehicle to one Mukesh s/o Puralal Nat on

02.04.2019; and has nothing to do with the said vehicle any more.

Thus, the applicant has taken a somersault in his defence before this

Court, because now his case is that he is not the signatory of the

original agreement to sell, which was executed between him and his

brother-in-law Jitendra Bagri on 16.01.2019.

So far as the present bail application is concerned, it is found

that no specific grounds have been raised in the same and it appears

to have been drafted in a cavalier manner.

So far as the orders passed by this Court at Indore Bench in (1)

Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1857/2015 (Hakam Kha s/o

Hanif Kha v. State of MP) dated 23.06.2015, (2) Miscellaneous

Criminal Case No.5875/2015 (Dinesh s/o Badrilal Ji Dhakad v.

State of MP) dated 03.05.2016 and (3) Miscellaneous Criminal

Case No.19389/2017 (Ayyub Khan s/o Mirbay Khan v. State of

MP) dated 06.02.2018; and the judgment of the Supreme Court in

the case of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported as (2018) 2

SCC (Criminal) 673 = (2018) 11 SCC 570 are concerned, at this

MCRC No.18026/2021

stage, they are distinguishable.

In view of the same, the application stands dismissed.

So far as the non impleadment / arraying the original vehicle

owner as an accused is concerned, the Superintendent of Police,

Mandsaur is also directed to take up an appropriate inquiry into the

matter that if the original owner of the vehicle, Jitendra Bagri had

any contact with the present applicant or the other accused person

prior to or after the vehicle was seized, and appropriate action be

taken in the regard. Also, this inquiry should be conducted through

some high ranking officer, other than the I.O. A copy of the report in

this regard be also sent to the registry of this court within 4 weeks.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Pithawe RC

RAMESH CHANDRA PITHWE 2021.06.18 12:20:19 +05'30'