Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 September, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 13th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38556 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SANTOSH S/O SHRI HARIPRASAD JI
RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: MAJDOORI, R/O
SATWAS TEHSIL SATWAS, DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI JITENDRA BAJPAI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION SATWAS, DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRANAY JOSHI, LEARNED PL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
O R D E R
The applicant has filed this third repeat bail application under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. His earlier
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/13/2022
6:24:15 PM
two applications have been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
05/02/2018 and 30/07/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.Nos.1690/2018 and
35756/2021 respectively.
Applicant is in Jail since 27/03/2017 in connection with Crime
No.309/2017 registered at Police Station - Satwas, District Dewas
(M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20 of
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
As per the prosecution story, on 26/08/2017 police got a
discrete information from the informant regarding the illegeal
transportation of the contraband. Act upon the said information,
police party reached on the spot and intercepted the present applicant
and recovered 9.800 Kilograms gaanja from his possession.
Accordingly, a case has been registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter.
Applicant is in custody since 27/03/2017. Mandatory provisions as
provided under Section 52-A, 55, 57 and 42 of the NPDS Act have
not been complied in the instant case. Prosecution has cited as many
as 37 witnesses, therefore, final conclusion of the trial will take
considerable long time. The seized quantity of contraband is below
than the commercial quantity. Hence, he prays that applicant be
released on bail.
Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes
Signature Not Verifiedthe bail application and prays for its rejection by submiting that
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/13/2022
6:24:15 PM
present applicant has been convicted under Section 8/20 of the
NDPS Act in another crime vide judgment dated 27/07/2013 passed
by the Special Judge and sentenced him to underto 10 years RI with
fine of Rs.1 Lac and during the suspension period the applicant has
committed offence of similar nature. Applicant is a habitual offender.
Hence, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the
Court below.
After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of allegation as also taking note of the fact that
applicant is a habitual offender. Earlier also he has been convicted
under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act and after conviction in the
earlier case, he has repeated the offence of similar nature. As per the
status report of received from the trial Court, seven prosecution
witnesses have been examined.
In view of the prima-facie material available against the
applicant, without commenting upon the merits of the case, at this
stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.
Accordingly, the third bail application preferred under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
J U D G E
Tej
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/13/2022
6:24:15 PM
