Anil Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4229 MP

                                                                          1
                                        IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                            ON THE 17 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                                      MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6891 of 2023

                                       BETWEEN:-
                                       ANIL RAJAK S/O SHRI LAKHANLAL RAJAK, AGED
                                       ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR WARD NO.5
                                       GARHI MOHALLA TEHSIL SILWANI DISTRICT- RAISEN,
                                       M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                         .....APPLICANT
                                       (BY SHRI DHEERAJ TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

                                       AND
                                       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                                       STATION S.T.F. BHOPAL DISTRICT- BHOPAL, M.P.
                                       (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                                       (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

This is first bail application on behalf of the applicant filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Case Crime No. 32/2021 is registered at Police Station S.T.F., District Bhopal under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, 1985 and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959. The applicant is in custody since 19/08/2021.

It is submitted that the vehicle which was seized from which 51 kgs. of Signature Not Verified SAN Ganja was seized does not belong to the present applicant. It belongs to the absconded accused. It is further submitted that the fire arm which was Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2023.03.21 20:15:09 IST

recovered is also of the absconding accused and not of the present applicant. He is innocent and he is a labourer. His right to life and liberty should not be violated.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I. citation of which is not given on the pretext that it is opened on the mobile phone from the website of India Kanoon and reading exhaustively from the said judgment, it is pointed out that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. Reading out from the said judgment, it is pointed out that the purpose of bail is not to secure conviction or penalize somebody. The only purpose is to secure presence of the person before the court as and when required.

Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Pramod Saxena opposes the prayer and submits that requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 are not made out. The commercial quantity is seized from the joint possession of the accused persons. He prays for rejection of the bail application.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 from where Shri Tiwari has read exhaustively from para 21 onwards, it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused persons at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered as punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand trial when called upon.

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Gudikanti Signature Not Verified SAN

Narsimhulu and others Vs. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240 wherein Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2023.03.21 20:15:09 IST

Justice V.R. Krishnaiyer enunciated the principles of bail and quoted the words

of Benjamin Cardozo to describe judicial discretion. Reading these paragraphs, it is submitted that the applicant being a youth, a labourer and he has a family to maintain, he be enlarged on bail.

After going through the arguments and taking into consideration the provisions contained in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra (supra), I am of the view that the commercial quantity is seized.

It is submitted by learned Government Advocate that the absconding accused is real brother of present applicant Anil. Car bearing registration no. M.P.-20-CG-7714 is registered in his name. The applicant was present in the car when contraband was seized.

Section 37 (i) (b) (ii) provides that where the public prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the benefit of bail can be extended in favour of the accused.

It is also true and repeatedly expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is a need for speedy trial. It is also an admitted fact that there are 39 witnesses which are to be examined by the prosecution. When asked, learned counsel for the applicant is not in a position as to how many witnesses have

been examined. Thus, he is not in a position to point out as to who is responsible for delay in trial.

When this aspect is taken into consideration and the fact that the

Signature Not Verified SAN Investigating Officer is yet not examined and he is a vital witness for the

Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR prosecution, releasing the applicant has a potential danger of influencing the Date: 2023.03.21 20:15:09 IST

witnesses and, therefore, for the present taking into fact that the commercial quantity has been seized from the physical possession of the present applicant along with other co-accused persons and there is a criminal history of three cases, out of which two are under the N.D.P.S. Act, this is not a fit case for extending the benefit of bail.

Accordingly, the application fails and is dismissed. However, at this stage, learned Special Judge NDPS Act Raisen is directed to expedite the trial and make an attempt to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2023.03.21 20:15:09 IST