Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madanlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 14th OF MARCH, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4675 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MADANLAL S/O GOPIRAM KUMAWAT, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
GRAM BEHPUR, TEHSIL DALODA, DISTRICT
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VIKAS JAIN - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
DALODA, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY MS. VARSHA THAKUR GA )
_____________________________________________________________________
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This is the third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on
behalf of the applicant. The applicant is in custody since 28.2.2021 in
connection with Crime No.53/2021, registered at Police Station Daloda,
district Mandsaur, for the offences punishable under Section 8/15 and 29
of NDPS Act and section 473 of IPC.
As er prosecution story, on 10.2.2021, police received a secret
information from the informant regarding illegal transportation of
contraband,
Signature Not Verified acting upon the said information police reached on the spot
Signed by: AMOL N
MAHANAG
Signing time: 3/15/2023
10:53:31 AM
and intercepted maruti car bearing registration No. M.P. 14 C.H. 5676
and recovered 98.5 Kgs. poppy straw. On the basis of memorandum of
co-accused Rahul, the present applicant Madanlal has also been made
accused the alleged offence.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. There is no
legal evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the
aforementioned offence. Although his first bail application was
dismissed on merit vide order dated 18/11/2021, but he is suffering jail
incarceration for last 23 months and the prosecution has not been able to
examined single witness till date. In view of the law down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Santender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI reported
in (2022) 10 scc 51 and the order dated 11/09/2023 passed in MCRC
no. 34/2023 by Jabalpur Bench of this Court, the delay in trial is caused
due to fault of the prosecution, therefore, the applicant deserves for bail.
Under Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be
considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and
proper.
In supported of his contention, learned counsel has also placed
reliance upon the the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Dheeren Kumar Jaina Vs. Union of Indian ( Criminal
Appeal no. 965/2021 )
Per-contra, learned PL for respondent - State opposes the bail
application and prays for its rejection submitting that the seized quantity
of the contraband is more than the commercial quantity and earlier bail
application of the applicant was dismissed on merit vide order dated
18/11/2021, therefore, he does not deserve for bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL N
MAHANAG
Signing time: 3/15/2023
10:53:31 AM
Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case
dairy.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments
advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of
the fact that the seized quantity of the contraband is more than the
commercial quantity, therefore there is specific bar under section 37 of
the NDPS Act in the instant case, in view of the evidence available on
record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, this third bail application filed under section 439 of
Cr.P.C by the applicant has no force and is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
amol
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL N
MAHANAG
Signing time: 3/15/2023
10:53:31 AM
