Sudip Kumar Singh Gaharwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 845 MP

                                                                    1
                                         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                 MCRC No. 43382 of 2021
                                            (SUDIP KUMAR SINGH GAHARWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                 Jabalpur, Dated : 18-01-2022
                                       Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                       Shri Vidhya Shankar Mishra, counsel for the applicant.
                                       Shri S.S. Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail.

T h e applicant has been arrested on 19.7.2021 by Police Station

Amiliya, District-Sidhi (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.348/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 5/13 of Drug Control Act and 8/21, 22 of NDPS Act.

It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. The present applicant was a passenger in the vehicle and co-accused was a driver of the vehicle from where the so said contraband is being recovered. It is submitted that they are neither the owner of the vehicle nor the contraband article belongs to him. The contraband actually belongs to Rahul who has already been enlarged

on bail vide order dated 21.9.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.46412/2021. The investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. There is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. The applicant is a first offender. He is ready to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering the application for grant of bail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail.

P er contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that there is a recovery from the possession of applicant and co-accused . The case of Rahul is entirely different as he was made accused only on the basis of memo of Section 27 of the present applicant. Mere filing of charge-sheet will not absorb their conduct. There is a Signature Not Verified SAN large quantity of codeine cough syrup bottles recovered from their

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.01.19 16:34:31 IST

possession for which no explanation could be given by the applicant and co- accused. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow Vs. Md. Nawaz Khan reported in 2021 (10) SCC 100 and has submitted that the explanation is required to be given by the applicant regarding possession of such a huge quantity of cough syrup from the

applicant and co-accused. Whether it is use for some other purpose or for some medical purpose. In absence of any explanation the offence is clearly made out. Looking to the custody period he has placed for dismissal of the bail application.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the quantity of cough syrup bottles being recovered from the possession of the present applicant and co-accused, and in absence of any explanation, placing reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Md. Nawaz Khan (supra), this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow the bail application.

The application is hereby rejected.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

irfan

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.01.19 16:34:31 IST