Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendrasingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56687 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIRENDRASINGH S/O MANSINGH RAJPUT, AGED 22
YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER / LABOR R/O GRAM
JANDOLIYA DHAMNCHA THANA BEG DISTT.
CHHITTORGARH RAJ (RAJASTHAN)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI NILESH PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION RATANGARH, DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( BY MS. NISHA TANWAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is fourth first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail relating to Crime
No. 152/2021 registered at Police Station Ratangarh District Neemuch (M.P.)
for the offence under Sections 8/15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 1.10.2021 police got a discrete
information from the informant regarding the illegal transportation of the
contraband. Acting upon the said information, police party reached on the spot
and intercepted Innova vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-21-UA-7545 and
during search of the vehicle, 100 kg poppy-straw has been recovered from
possession of the present applicant. Accordingly, a case has been registered
against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent
and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Applicant is in custody since
1.10.2021 and he has already suffered jail incarceration of more than two and
half years. Prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The seizure
witnesses and other independent witnesses have turned hostile and not
supported the case of prosecution. Final conclusion of trial court will take
sufficient long time. Hence, he prays that applicant be released on bail.
4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the bail
application and prays for its rejection by submitting that seized quantity of
contraband is more than the commercial quantity therefore, there is specific bar
under section 37 of NDPS Act. Hence applicant does not deserve for bail.
5. Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the Court
below.
6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and nature and
gravity of allegation, it is revealed that seized quantity of contraband is more
than the commercial quantity therefore, there is specific bar under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act. Although some seizure witnesses have been examined before
the trial court and they have turned hostile, but IO and other witnesses who
were present on the spot at the time of incident categorically deposed against
the applicant about commission of offence.
7. At the stage of consideration of bail, detailed marshalling of the
prosecution witnesses is not permissible as per the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Ors.
(Cr.A.No.651/2007) decided on 30/07/2007 , wherein it has been held as
under:-
"At the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go
into the question of prima facie case established for
granting bail. It cannot go into the question of credibility
and reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution.
The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution
witnesses can only be tested during the trial."
8. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Jaggi
(supra), this Court can only go into the question of the prima facie case
established for granting bail. At the stage of consideration of bail, this Court
cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses put up
by the prosecution.
9. In view of the above, this court is not inclined to grant regular bail to
applicant.
10. Hence this fourth bail application filed by applicant under section
439 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
BDJ
