Bhuru @ Bhura vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Subodh Abhyankar, J

They are heard. Perused the case diary / challan papers. This is the applicant's First application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He is implicated in connection with Crime No.545/2019 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Jaora, District Ratlam (MP) for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 15, 25, 29, 27 (A) and 31 (A) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the Act) and also under Sections 307, 147, 148, 332, 333, 336 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The applicant is in custody since 30.10.2021 (As per memo). The allegation against the applicant is that he was also involved in the aforesaid offence, wherein the contraband poppy straw, weighing 256.800 kilograms has been seized from the possession of two accused persons viz. Javed Mev S/o Jahid Mev and Atta-ul-rahman S/o Abdul Rauf.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the case of the present applicant is identical to the co-accused persons Attaul Rehman S/o Abdul Rauf and Javed S/o Shri Jahid Khan who have already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.47329/2022 and M.Cr.C. No.37836/2022 vide order dated 29.09.2022 and 22.09.2022 respectively (copy placed on record).

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that in an identical case MCRC No.30722/2022 (Jaivardhan S/o Sudarshan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh), this Court has allowed his 9th bail application on 02.08.2022 on the ground that the sample obtained from the contraband seized was not in accordance with law, as the entire batch of contraband was mixed and thereafter the samples were taken from it. It is submitted that in the present case also, the alleged 256.8 kilograms of poppy straw was kept in 16 bags and after mixing the contraband of those bags together homogeneously, the samples have been taken out and the maximum quantity of a bag is 18 kilograms which is less than the commercial quantity. Thus, it is submitted that the applicant’s case is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in the case Jaivardhan S/o Sudarshan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). Hence, it is submitted that the bail application be allowed maintaining parity and he be released on bail.

Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that looking to the quantity of contraband seized from the applicant, no case for grant of bail is made out.

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary as also the order passed by this Court in case Jaivardhan S/o Sudarshan (supra), this Court finds force with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on merits of the matter, the present application for grant of bail is allowed, maintaining parity with other co-accused persons. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance, as and when directed.

It is also observed that after his release on bail, if the applicant is found in any criminal activities, the learned Judge of the trial Court shall, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, be at liberty to cancel this bail order, without further reference to this Court.

It is also directed that the applicant will abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.