Lalit Kumar Bahareliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 81 MP

                                                                      1                         M.Cr.C. No.60782-2021




                                                         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                     M.Cr.C. No.60782/2021
                                                       (Lalit Kumar Bahareliya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)

                                        Jabalpur, Dated 03-01-2022

                                                Shri Hakin Khan Qureshi, counsel for the petitioner.
                                                Shri     Akhilendra       Singh,   Government     Advocate       for    the
                                        respondent/State.
                                                                         ORDER

Crime No. Under section Police Station Arrest Date 462/2021 8 & 20 of the Cantt, Jabalpur 28.09.2021 Narcotic Drugs and Distt. Jabalpur Psychotropic (M.P.) Substances Act

As declared by the petitioner, this is the second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.49881/2021.

2. This time, the petitioner has come with a case that now the charge- sheet has been filed. There is violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the recovery allegedly made from possession of the petitioner is doubtful.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court towards identification memo of the substance seized & the seizure memo and submitted that identification or Pahchan Panchnama was prepared at 04:00 o'clock while the seizure has been made at 06:30 in the morning. Thus, before seizing the substance, the police have identified the substance and this makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. To bolster his contention that the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. act are mandatory, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.817 of 2008 dated 09.01.2013.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2022.01.04 17:32:35 IST

4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submitted that as per settled law, filing of charge-sheet is not a substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the recovery has been made from the bag which the petitioner was carrying with him, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act are not applicable in this case. However, he referred to the Sahmati Panchnama prepared on the spot and submitted that before effecting search, the petitioner was well apprised with his right to be searched by the gazetted officer or the nearest magistrate and when he consented for the search to be taken by the Investigating Officer, he was searched, his consent was deduced in writing, therefore, it cannot be said that any provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has been violated in this case. He further referred to the several documents prepared on the spot and invited attention of this Court towards the timings of those documents and submitted that all actions have been taken and recorded in sequence and after completing the formalities regarding search & recovery, at the end, the substance was seized by the police on the spot itself, therefore, recovery cannot be doubted. It is further argued that since there is no material change in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary.

6. After going through the documents available in the case diary, the recovery made from possession of the petitioner and other facts and circumstances of the case, still I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, therefore, the petition is dismissed.

(Virender Singh) Judge @shish

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 2022.01.04 17:32:35 IST