Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sagar @ Saddam Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2022
Author: Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
ON THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52725 of 2021
Between:-
SAGAR @ SADDAM KHAN S/O SIKANDAR @
SHAILENDRA KHAN , AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOURER WARD NO. 06
BAIKUNTHPUR P.S. BAIKUNTHPUR DIST.
REWA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA DUBEY, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
P.S. VISWAVIDYALYA REWA DIST. REWA MP
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.CHADHAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR )
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first bail application filed by the petitioner-accused under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail who is in custody since
08.04.2021 in connection with Crime No.85/2021, registered at Police Station
Vishwavidyalaya, District Rewa, for the offence under Sections 8, 21, 22 of
the NDPS Act and 5/13 of the MPDC Act.
2- The bail has been pleaded by the petitioner on two grounds.
First, at the time of the alleged recovery, he was not on the spot. After the
alleged recovery the police called him from his house at police station and
implicated in the present case. To establish this plea, he demanded CCTV
footage of the police station and tower location of his mobile, which have not
been provided stating that due to storage capacity of hard disc, recording
older than 15 days cannot be given as the data stored in it gets automatically
Signature Not Verified
SAN deleted. But, it is contrary to the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN
Date: 2022.02.02 17:39:36 IST
given in Paramvir Singh Soni vs. Baljit Singh (2021) 1 SCC 184. The
second ground is that neither he is owner nor tenant of the house from where
the alleged recovery of narcotics drugs has been effected. This house belongs
to Shashi Singh and was given on rent to Deepak Singh Baghel. Deepak is
real Dewar (brother-in-law) of Shashi. The petitioner has no relation with
Shashi, Deepak or the drug recovered from their house.
3- The other grounds taken by the petitioner are that he is in
custody since 08.04.2021. Investigation is over, charge sheet has been filed.
His custodial interrogation is not required. The trial would take time. The
petitioner is permanent resident of Baikunthpur, District Rewa. There is no
possibility of his absconding. Still he is ready to furnish adequate security. He
has unblemished criminal record. Looking to the nature of proposed
evidence, there is no possibility of its tampering, therefore, he be granted
bail.
4- The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of Mari Appa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (1990) CrLJ 1990
and Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerala AIR 2001 SC 137 and also the order of
Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.07.2021 passed in MCrC
No.24825/2021, wherein, considering the case of Paramvir Singh Soni
(supra) and the facts of that particular case, the bail has been allowed to the
petitioner therein in a case of recovery of 50 gms. of MDMA Drug.
5 - Further it is argued that charge sheet has not been filed under
Section 29 of the NDPS Act, therefore, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted
for the alleged recovery made from a place which does not belongs to him.
6 - The prosecution has vehemently opposed the bail. It is
submitted that at the time of the recovery, the petitioner was present inside the
house. Recovery was effected in his presence. There is no evidence that the
direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court issued in Paramvir Singh Soni (supra)
has been complied with. The CCTVs installed by the State Government have
capacity of storing data upto only 15 days, therefore, the officers posted at
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN
Date: 2022.02.02 17:39:36 IST
the police station cannot be faulted with if the mandated storage capacity was
not installed or provided by the State Government till date. It is not a case of
willful or intentional denial, therefore, undue advantage cannot be given to the
petitioner. Tower location of any particular mobile can be obtained by the
petitioner himself directly or through the Court and further it is not such type
of evidence which can be given weightage at this stage without proof several
aspects thereof.
7 - The rejection of bail of the co-accused-Deepak Singh and
similarity of the case of the petitioner with his case has also been pressed into
service alongwith the provision of Section 37A of the NDPS Act. The
recovery of commercial quantity of narcotics drugs is another ground seeking
rejection of the plea of the petitioner.
8 - I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the
record.
9 - It is the case of the prosecution that acting on discrete
information, the police searched a room on 08.04.2021. Three persons
namely Sagar @ Saddam (present petitioner), Sunil Dwivedi and Deepak
Singh Baghel were found present there. In their presence a room of the house
was searched and total 129 cartons having 15480 bottles of Corex Cough
Syrup containing codeine phosphate were recovered.
1 0 - In view of the case of Heera Singh vs. Union of India
(Criminal Appeal No.5218/2017) passed on 22.04.2020, the trial Court
considering entire quantity of the contraband as 1548 Kgs. which is much on
higher side of commercial quantity, rejected the bail.
1 1 - Nothing has been stated regarding recovery of the alleged
quantity of illegal drug.
1 2 - There is nothing on record to show that the mandate of
Hon'ble Supreme Court given in Paramvir Singh Soni (supra) has been
complied with or the police have made a fake claim that Close Circuit Camera
installed at the police station is not having storage capacity of more than 15
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN
Date: 2022.02.02 17:39:36 IST
days, therefore, I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for
the State that if storage capacity as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
is not available at the police station, the in-charge of the police station cannot
be faulted with. At this stage, benefit thereof cannot be extended to the
petitioner.
1 3 - Since the petitioner has been found on the spot and prima
facie there is nothing to doubt his presence, the submission made regarding
Section 29 of the NDPS Act is not tenable.
1 4 - The claim of the petitioner regarding tower location of his
mobile are still to be established during the trial. At this stage, keeping in view
the recovery of huge commercial quantity of illegal narcotics drugs in
presence of the petitioner, the rider created under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act and other facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion
of this Court, no case for grant of bail is made out. The judgments of
Paramvir Singh Soni (supra) and Roy V.D. (supra) deals in altogether
different fields and are not helpful to the petitioner, therefore, the petition is
dismissed.
(VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE
anand
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN
Date: 2022.02.02 17:39:36 IST
