Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Singh vs Union Of India on 11 November, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 11th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47611 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
DILIP SINGH S/O MADAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT
39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
GRAM BARKHEDA SONDHIYA POST CHALDU,
TEHSIL AND PS JEERAN, DISTRICT NEEMUCH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RISHIRAJ TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER .
AND
UNION OF INDIA CENTRAL BUREAU OF
NARCOTICS DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SONI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT .
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is SECOND bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
T h e applicant is facing trial in connection with Crime No.02/2021,
registered at Police Station CBN, District Neemuch for the offences punishable
under Sections 8/18,15,25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN
Act, 1885. The applicant is in jail since 06.03.2021.
AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.11.18
15:38:48 IST
As per prosecution story on 21.03.2021 police encircled the residential
house of Ramchandra and seized 13Kg of Opium, 7 Quintal 39 Kg of Poppy
Husk and 1 Quintal 75.590 Kg of Poppy Straw from his house. The present
applicant fled away from the spot. Hence, he has been implicated in the case.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that the
quantity of opium i.e. 3.650 Kgms allegedly shown to have been seized from the
possession of the present applicant actually belongs to the licensee Kalawati Bai
and the same was not entered in the daily registered by her, and similarly, the
quantity of opium i.e. 2.300 and 0950 Kgms is belongs to the licensee Madan
Singh i.e. father of the applicant, therefore, there cannot be any offence said to
have been committed by the applicant. The applicant is first offender. The
offence under Section 8/18 and 8/19 of the NDPS act is not attracted in as
much as the alleged opium is recovered. It is further submitted that the applicant
himself is a licensee for opium cultivation and therefore, no criminal liability can
be fastened on the shoulders of the applicant. It is also submitted that in case of
any breach of the conditions of license then provisions of Section 26 of the
NDPS Act will attract. Learned counsel for the applicant has also highlighted
the fact that in various cases where recovery of commercial quantity was
involved, there the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have, on the
basis of arguable points in the bail application as well as by considering the
period of custody and merits of the case, granted bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant, in order to overcome the bar under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, has relied upon several judgments i.e. Dheeran
kumar Jaina vs. Union of India passed in CRA No.965/2021 and Amit
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.11.18
singh @ Moni vs. Himanchal Pradesh passed in CRA No.668/2020, in
15:38:48 IST
Mukarram Hussain vs. State of Rajasthan and Another passedin CRA
No.827/2021 by Hon'ble Apex Court and Snkush Kumar @ Sonu vs.
State of Punjab reported in 2018 (4) CRC (Cri.) 84, Hence, he prays that
the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
O n the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application on the ground that commercial quantity has been recovered from
possession of the applicant and there is bar under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act. hence, prays for dismissal of the application.
In support of his contention, counsel for the State has placed reliance
over the judgement of Apex Court passed in the case of Narcotics Control
Bureau vs. Mohit Agarwal in CRA Nos.1001-02/2022.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, on perusal of the
material available on record including the case diary, without commenting on the
merits of the case, this application is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant/accused be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lac
Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing
fixed in this regard during trial. It is also directed that the applicant shall comply
with the provisions of Section 437(3) Cr.P.C alongwith the following
conditions:
(i) that the appellant not indulge in any similar activities in future ,
(ii) the applicant shall not influence the witnesses, in any case.
(iii) the applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.11.18
15:38:48 IST
(iv) the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every
hearing.
(v) that failure in any of the above condition, this order shall stand
vacant automatically without further reference to this Court.
This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial, but in case of bail
jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective
and cancelled without reference to this Bench.
This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
Cc. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.11.18
15:38:48 IST
