Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Lilhare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 MCRC-25539-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 28 th OF JUNE, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25539 of 2024
(MANOJ LILHARE
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Appearance:
(APPLICANT BY SHRI PANKAJ DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT-STATE BY SMT SWATI ASEEM GEORGE - GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
ORDER
This first post-arrest application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail,
who is behind the bars since 03.05.2024 in connection with registration of FIR
vide Crime No.278/2024 at Police Station Kotwali, District Balaghat (M.P.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 8, 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Learned counsel for the applicant sanguinely submits that the
incrimination of the applicant is solely based on politically-oriented -animosity.
To demystify, he submits that the applicant is an elected Sarpanch and had also
contested the Legislative Assembly Elections, although remained unsuccessful.
Making the ground of false implication due to political rivalry, learned counsel
submits that earlier also, the applicant was fallaciously implicated in a case of
similar nature alleging that he was carrying 21 kg of ganja and the High Court
while granting him bail in M.Cr.C.No.61837/2022 vide order dated 18.04.2022
observed that the entanglement of the applicant in the crime was nothing but a
fallacy. Taking aid from the observations made by the High Court, learned
2 MCRC-25539-2024
counsel for the applicant submits that in the case at hand also, the applicant has
filed several documents to show that he sold the property and agreement as
such was executed on 02.05.2024 in which he received Rs.5 Lakh from the
purchaser of the property and when the applicant was coming back after
executing the said agreement, the police intercepted and detained him in custody
and on next day, offence was registered alleging that the applicant was carrying
22 kg of Ganja. As per the applicant, the police is incessantly harassing and
ensnaring him in false cases of NDPS. He also pinpoints the observations made
by the Court in earlier occasion in which 21 kg Ganja was said to have been
seized from the applicant and here in this case the quantity of Ganja is alleged
to be 22 kg, which is quite above the commercial quantity and submits that such
allegation has been saddled upon the applicant with an intent to bring home the
charge of non-bailable offence which would make the process arduous for
getting bail early.
In contrast, Smt George learned counsel for the State submits that the
applicant has past criminal record and it is not a case where it can be assumed
that the applicant has been fallaciously implicated. She further submits that
merely because some observations made by the court in earlier case would not
mean that the applicant has been granted leeway to commit offence and deviate
subsequent incrimination taking shelter of false implication. Ergo, the
application deserves outright dismissal.
Before reaching to a conclusion, it is expedient to quote the observations
made by the High Court in earlier order granting bail to the applicant, which
read as under:-
"The contention of learned senior counsel for the
applicant is that the applicant has been falsely
3 MCRC-25539-2024
implicated. It is stated that the applicant is a
Sarpanch and on the fateful day has gone to distribute
his invitation card for the house warming ceremony,
from where he was lifted by the police authorities,
and a false case of possessing 21 Kgs of Ganja has
been lodged against him. In support of his contention,
affidavits on behalf of villagers, who have seen this
incident have been filed.
On the last date of hearing, counsel for the State was
directed to verify the affidavits filed by the applicant.
As per the report, that is available with the counsel
for the State, these persons have denied giving any
kind of affidavits in support of the present applicant.
Out of the six affidavits filed by the applicant, three
of the persons namely Rakesh Banote, Ram Kumar
and Nakul Prasad are present in the Court and they
have been identified through their Driving License as
well as Aadhar Cards. These persons have stated that
they have never denied giving such affidavits and
they were apprehending that the police might filed
incorrect report, hence they have come to this Court
to bring the correct facts before this Court. The house
warming invitation card is also on record. All these
persons, who are present in the Court have stated that
they saw the police authorities lifting the present
applicant from his car when he went to distribute the
invitation card for his housewarming ceremony.
It is pertinent to note here that such an act of police
authorities in filing the incorrect report is highly
deprecated. It is also to be noted here that this Court
has also called for the CCTV footage of that period,
the same has been very conveniently declined on the
ground that no CCTV footage of that day is available
because of some renovation or up-gradation work
going on in the police station. It has also come on
record that earlier a case in the year 2015 was
registered against the present applicant under NDPS
Act. The applicant has been acquitted in that case on
4 MCRC-25539-2024
the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove his
case against the applicant. The judgment to that effect
is available on record. Under such circumstances,
false implication of the present applicant in such a
case cannot be ruled out."
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and perusal
of the documents made appendage to the application, prima facie to some
extent, those documents succour the ground raised for getting bail. Quite apart,
it is not an application for anticipatory bail, but the applicant is behind the bars.
Albeit, the applicant has some criminal antecedents but pursuant to
observations made by the High Court, as quoted above, the probability of
fallaciously implication also cannot be ruled out.
In view of the above, I a m inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be
released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance on the dates given
by it.
I t is further directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions
enumerated in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Sudesh
