Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhartisharan Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2529 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BHARTISHARAN SHUKLA S/O RAMLAGAN SHUKLA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE BADWARA P.S.
DEVENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI P.C.PALIWAL - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION NAGOUD DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SHIPRA GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER )
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to Crime
No.805/2023 registered at Police Station - Nagoud, District Satna (M.P.) for the
offence punishable under Section 8-B, 21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and under Section 5/13 of the MP Drugs
Control Act, 1949. Applicant is in detention since 20.10.2023. His first
applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.12.2023 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.50314/2023.
2. As per the prosecution story, on receiving an information from an
informant, 25 bottles of 100 ml of Bulrex Cough Syrup from the possession of
the applicant. FIR was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is in jail
since 20.10.2023. He has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that in
this matter from recording of Mukhbir Suchna, the entire investigation has been
conducted by one person Hemraj Singh which is against the law and procedure.
In FIR, it is mentioned that each bottle contained 10 gram codeine phosphate,
which shows negligent act of the investigating officer. The alleged place of
incident is covering under CCTV camera but police did not collect the CCTV
footage. Provision of Section 50 (5) and (6) of the NDPS Act was not
complied. There was delay in sending the sample to the FSL. There is
contradiction in the documents prepared by the Investigating Officer which
makes the prosecution story doubtful. The seized contraband was not of
commercial quantity. It is also submitted that one seizure witness Rahul P.W-1
has not supported the prosecution story. Therefore, it has been prayed that the
applicant may be released on bail pending the trial. In support of his
submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court given
in the case of Yusuf alias Asif Vs. State, AIR 2023 SC 826 and in the case
of Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab AIR SC 3853
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State has vehemently opposed
the grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that the contraband which
has been seized from the accused comes under commercial quantity.
5. From perusal of the case diary it is found that from the applicant 25
bottles of 100 ml of Bulrex Cough Syrup was seized and in each bottle of 100
ml, contained codeine phosphate which comes under the commercial quantity in
the light of Supreme Court judgment Hira Singh and other Vs. Union of
India given in Cr.A.No.722/2017. The procedural lapse as argued by learned
counsel for the applicant is a matter of trial.
6. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and bar
of Section 37 of NDPS Act, I do not find it a fit case to grant him bail.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
anu
