Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 972 (MP)

Sunil Kumar S/o Mulchand Bijwa v. Union Of India

2023-12-06

PREM NARAYAN SINGH

body2023
ORDER : Heard analogously, perused the case diary and both the applications are being decided with this common order. These are first bail application under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code in connection with crime No. 27/2023, registered at P.S - C.B.N. Neemuch, District-Neemuch (M. P.) for offence punishable under section 8/18, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1885. The applicants are in custody since 23-7-2023 and 4-8-2023 respectively. 2. As per prosecution story, 6 kg and 520 grams Opium has been recovered from the possession of the co-accused Kamal and the applicants have been implicated on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. It is alleged that at the instance of applicant, 6.520 kg Opium was seized from other co-accused person namely Kamal and the applicants have been implicated on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act. Hence, it is submitted that the applicants cannot be liable for other quantity seized from the co-accused. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused Dinesh has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 43914/2023 and the applicants are having parity with him. They are in jail since 23-7-2023 and 4-8-2023 respectively. Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Counsel for State opposes the prayer and submitted that since on the information of the present applicant, commercial quantity was seized from the co-accused Kamal, therefore, the applicant is liable for abetment and bar of section 37 of NDPS Act would be applicable. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Union of India (NCB) ETC vs. Khalil Uddin ETC., CRA No. 1841-1842/2022 as well as on Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu passed in CRA No. ----. 5. So far as the judgment relied upon by counsel for the State/CBN are concerned, the facts of the aforesaid cases are different to the facts of this Court, hence, they are distinguishable. 5. So far as the judgment relied upon by counsel for the State/CBN are concerned, the facts of the aforesaid cases are different to the facts of this Court, hence, they are distinguishable. Further, having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that nothing was seized from the applicants and their custody period, I am of the view that it is a case in which applicants may be released on bail. Consequently, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this first bail applications under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code filed on behalf of the applicants are allowed. 6. It is directed that the applicant/accused be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial. It is also directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of section 437(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. C.C. as per rules.