Ravindra Bagrati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8375 MP

                                  1
   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                        ON THE 12 th OF JUNE, 2023
               MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9459 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
RAVINDRA BAGRATI S/O SHRI VIMAL BAGRATI, AGED
ABOUT   36  YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
KECHUR DADAR POLICE STATION PAIKMAL DISTRICT
BARGARH ORISSA, (ORISSA)

                                                                .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY PATEL - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI L.A.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail relating to FIR No.330/2022 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Panna, for the offence under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The applicant's earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.09.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.30435 of 2022.

As per case of prosecution, from joint possession of applicant and other

co-accused persons, total 27.500 kgs of ganja was seized.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 17.05.2022. He submits that the statement of Inquiry Officer has been recorded and perusal whereof made it clear that the respondents have not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 57 of the Act, 1985. He further submits that the statement of seizure witnesses has also been recorded, but they have not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Therefore, he prays that looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the applicant's custody period, he may be enlarged on bail.

O n the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the

prayer of bail and submitted that total 27.500 kgs ganja was seized from five accused persons, which was more than commercial quantity. He has further submitted that compliance of Section 57 of the Act, 1985 is directory but not mandatory. He has also submitted that the officer has also explained as to why intimation to the next higher officer was not conveyed. He has submitted that mere lapse committed by the Inquiry Officer does not vitiate the whole investigation. In support of his contention, learned Government Advocate has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2001) 6 SCC 692 [Sajan Abraham Vs. State of Kerala], wherein it is held that compliance of Section 57 of the Act, 1985 is not mandatory if substantial compliance is made and small lapse in compliance of Section 57 does not vitiate the case of prosecution.

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of case-diary, the statement of Inquiry Officer and the applicant's custody period, I am of the opinion that it is not a case in which the applicant can be enlarged on bail. Therefore, the application stands rejected.

However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the s a m e as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish

DEVASHISH MISHRA 2023.06.14 10:48:40 +05'30'