Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangal Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 May, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 24 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MANGAL SINGH RAJPUT, S/O SHRI SHYAM SINGH
RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO 146, ARAWALI
NAGAR, BAINAR, JHUNTWARA, JAIPUR, DISTRICT
JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT - SENIOR ADVOCATE - WITH SHRI ROHIT
SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION AMANGANJ, DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI S.S. PATEL - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
Reserved on : 17.05. 2024
Pronounced on: 24.05.2024
This application having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This is third bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime
No.101/2023 dated 01.04.2023 registered at Police Station Amanganj, district
Panna, for the offence of Section 8/20(b) of the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the case. He is in custody since 01.04.2023 and
trial will take considerable time to conclude. He also submits that applicant is a
permanent resident of district Jaipur (Rajasthan) and there is no likelihood of his
absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready to
furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the conditions to be imposed by the
Court. On these grounds, the applicant may be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
This regular bail application is third in sequence, while the first one was
dismissed on merits under M.Cr.C. No.22952/2023 and second was dismissed
on merits under M.Cr.C. No.46882/2023.
This third bail application has been argued on the ground that applicant is
falsely implicated in the case on the basis of memorandum of co-accused
Mahendra, who was the driver of vehicle from which "Ganja" was seized and
was under the employment of applicant; it has been argued that no admissible
evidence has been gathered which would show the complicity of applicant in
the crime; it has also been argued that the vehicle was being used as a taxi and
for this, reliance has been placed upon Section 25 of the NDPS Act; it has also
been argued that under the judgment of Toofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu
(2021) 4 SCC 1 the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act
are not admissible and cannot be taken into account for convicting the accused;
it has been strongly argued that no seizure was made from the applicant and the
last argument is that the trial before the court is going at a very slow pace.
State has opposed all the aforesaid grounds and has claimed that
applicant is the purchaser of contraband and also the owner of vehicle from
which "Ganja" was recovered. It has also been argued that earlier two bail
applications of the applicant have already been dismissed on merits.
In this third bail application, applicant has relied upon documents relating
to his business of travel agencies and the vehicles engaged in that business, but
the vehicle in question in the present case was Toyota Itios bearing registration
no.RJ-45-CT-8354 and there is no document on record which would show that
the vehicle with that registration number was registered as a taxi, therefore the
argument that it was employed as a taxi and was, without the knowledge of
owner i.e. applicant, plying for transporting contraband, cannot be accepted at
this stage. Further, there is no document which would show that the vehicle was
engaged and was plying under a hire-agreement on the date of incident.
It is true that no seizure was made from the applicant but it is not a case
where his involvement is shown only on the basis of memorandum of co-
accused. Here, he is the owner of vehicle. Further, it is an issue to be examined
by the trial court whether the applicant was himself involved in the commission
of offence for transportation of commercial quantity of "Ganja" or was he only
permitting his vehicle to be used by any other person who was the actual
perpetrator of crime. At this stage, this court cannot examine or accept this
argument advanced by applicant for consideration of bail.
It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that there has
been no progress in the trial of the case but no documents have been filed to
support that argument.
On the basis of above discussion, this repeat bail application is
dismissed.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2024.05.27 19:21:09 +05'30'
