Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 741 (MP)

Pawan Chouhan v. State of M. P.

2020-07-28

NANDITA DUBEY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. On account of the prevailing conditions worldwide, brought about by the COVID 19 virus, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing, to maintain social distancing. The necessary parties have effectively been represented by their respective counsel through video conferencing. 2. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the CrPC. 3. The applicant is in custody since 20.2.2020 in connection with Crime No. 124/2020 registered at GRP, District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under section 8/20 of NDPS Act. 4. As per the prosecution, on the basis of an information form the informer, a raid was conducted and applicant was arrested with the possession of around 17 kgs. of Narcotics Substance (Ganja) from the railway station. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is stated that the entire proceedings is vitiated as the complainant is the same person who has conducted the raid, recorded the FIR and conducted the entire investigation. He has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab reported in (2018) 17 SCC 627. Pointing out to FIR as well as the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, learned counsel further submitted that there are only two independent witnesses, and both of them have stated that incident happened on 21.2.2020 and not on 20.2.2020. It is further pointed out that these statements of the witnesses were recorded after a period of one month on 21.3.2020. Lastly, it is submitted that the trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, applicant may be released on bail. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for rejection of the same. However, he has fairly submitted that statements of independent witnesses, namely, Rahul and Prashant revealed that the incident took place on 21st February,2020 and the panchnama was also recorded on the said date, however, the statements of other police witnesses state otherwise and show that the incident is of 20th February,2020. 7. Considering the contrary statements and discrepencies in the investigation, I am of the view that it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this application is allowed. 8. 7. Considering the contrary statements and discrepencies in the investigation, I am of the view that it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this application is allowed. 8. It is directed that applicant Pawan Chouhan shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during the trial. 9. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions :- “1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him; 2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench; 5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; 6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. 7. The learned concerned Magistrate and the prosecution are directed to ensure following of Covid-19 precautionary protocol prescribed from time to time by the Supreme Court, the Central Govt. and as well as the State Govt. during release, travel and residence of the applicant during period of bail as a consequence of this order.” 10. A typed copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry to the Office of the Advocate General and to Mr. Sheetal Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer, on their respective email address, for intimation to the Police Station concerned. The office is also directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Court below.