Laxminarayan Rathore vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 8138 MP

                                                              1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                  ON THE 25 th OF MAY, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19484 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          LAXMINARAYAN     RATHORE    S/O   TULSIRAMJI
                          RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE SAWAN, TEHSIL NEEMUCH
                          DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                          (SHRI ABHISHEK RATHORE-ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CBN INDORE (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                          (SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SONI-ADVOCATE)

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

1. Case diary is perused.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

3. The applicant - Laxminarayan Rathore has filed this first application u/S. 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

4. The applicant has been arrested on 18/04/2023 by Police Station - CBN, District Indore(M.P.) in connection with Crime No.02/2022 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Section 8/18 and 29 of The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(in short ..."of the Act").

Signature Not Verified

5. The allegation against the applicant in short is that on 27.10.2022, team Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 5/26/2023 4:35:58 PM

of police personnel stopped the applicant, interrogated/searched him and found a total of 01.835 grams of opium and seized the same from the possession of co-accused Shamshersingh. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant was implicated on the basis of memorandum under Section 67 of the Act of co- accused Shersingh, who named the present applicant. He further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Non-commercial quantity of opium has been seized from the possession of the co-accused and therefore, there is no bar under Section 37 of the Act to grant the bail. Nothing has been

seized from the possession of the present applicant. The applicant is permanent resident of District Indore (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of his absconsion o r tampering with the prosecution evidence and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed. He further submitted that the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. He further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State by (NCB) Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal(Cri.) No.242 of 2022. With the aforesaid, prayer for grant of bail is made out.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposed the bail application. He further placed reliance on the case of Union of India(NCB) Etc. Vs. Khalil Uddin Etc. [Criminal Appeal No(s).1841-1842/2022 to contend that the Apex Court was conscious of the fact that the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act has not intentionally valued. However, considering the facts and circumstances on record, in the face of the mandate Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 5/26/2023 4:35:58 PM

of Section 37 of the Act, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail and prays for dismissal of the bail application.

8. In view of aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court and the fact that the present case is exactly identical to the case of Union India Vs. Khalil(supra), I am of the view that no case for grant of bail is made out.

9. Consequently, the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant-Laxminarayan Rathore stands rejected.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) V. JUDGE VD

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 5/26/2023 4:35:58 PM