Sandeep Lakhera vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2841 MP

                                                                      1                           MCRC-29513-2021
                                            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                      MCRC-29513-2021
                                                    (SANDEEP LAKHERA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  2
                                  Jabalpur, Dated : 30-06-2021
                                           Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                           Mr. Vasant Roland Daniel, learned counsel for the applicant.
                                           Ms. Seema Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard and perused the documents along with the copy of the charge- sheet.

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.30/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985 registered at Police Station-Maharajpur, District-Sagar (M.P.).

First bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 18.06.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.41519/2020.

The allegation against the applicant is that on the date of the incident i.e. on 28.02.2020, he was caught with 22 kgs of ganja (contraband) which he was transporting in his car.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case as on the date of the incident, the applicant while driving from Seoni to Sagar was tried to be stopped by a policeman namely Rajesh Singh Thakur in civil dress, however, as the applicant could not stop his car in time he dashed against the said Rajesh Singh Thakur. Thereafter, as a counterblast, the applicant was taken to the police station where he was beaten brutally and a false case has been imposed upon him. He further submits that his version is supported by Rojnamcha Sanha No.17, Panchnama dated 29.02.2020 and statements of Head Constable, Rajesh Singh, Constable Nityaprakash Patel and Constable Jayendra Kushwaha recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Signature Not Verified SAN Procedure, wherein timings of getting information, search and seizure are self

Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH Date: 2021.07.01 12:04:26 IST 2 MCRC-29513-2021 contradictory. Applicant after making complaint filed a writ petition bearing W.P. No.11/2021 in this regard against Rajesh Singh Thakur and others which is pending before this Court. Applicant has maliciously been prosecuted by Head Constable Rajesh Singh and others. Applicant has not committed any offence so, he be released on bail.

Further, learned counsel for the applicant while placing reliance on the

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1978 SC 528, Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018)11 SCC 458 and Prahladbhai Jagabhai Patel and another Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2020) 3 SCC 341 submits that rejection of earlier bail application is not a bar for entertaining second bail application and for this change in circumstance is also not necessary.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and has submitted that the applicant has been found in possession of 22 Kgs of Ganja (Contraband) which is more than commercial quantity and as such no case for grant of bail is made out. So far as the story of the applicant is considered, it is submitted that at this stage the same cannot be considered. Thus, it is submitted that the application be dismissed.

On perusal of record it reveals that first bail application of the applicant was decided by this Court and at that point of time copy of W.P. No.11/2021 as well as copy of the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were placed on record and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court. Nothing additional has been produced by the counsel for the applicant on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant is liable to be released on bail.

Under these circumstances, although it is a settled law that as the order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another, o n a later occasion, giving more materials, further, developments a n d different Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH Date: 2021.07.01 12:04:26 IST 3 MCRC-29513-2021 considerations but in the present case since there is nothing produced additional. Thus, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to allow the application for bail.

Accordingly, application stands dismissed. Certified copy as per rules.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

julie

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by JULIE SINGH Date: 2021.07.01 12:04:26 IST