AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 392 wordsPramod Kumar Agrawal, J
This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 464/2022 at Police Station Nahota, District Damoh (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Sections 132, 130, 177(1), 177(3) of Motor Vehicles Act. First bail application was dismissed on merits by co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 14.06.2023 passed in MCRC No. 22364/2023.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that applicant has been made accused on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Gopal Bhoi and Ishwar Kheti. He has placed reliance on Tofan Singh V. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. Therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for State has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and has submitted that previous bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 14.06.2023 passed in MCRC No.22364/2023 by a detailed and reasoned order and thereafter this is no change in circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the vehicle from which 101 packets of contraband was seized was taken by the applicant. There is Call Details Report between applicant and co-accused so as to establish the case of prosecution. Apart from this one more crime no. 47/2021 for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC read with section 25/27 of Arms Act is also registered against the applicant and he is absconding since the year 2021. It is further submitted that facts of the case in which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant are different from the present case. Custodial interrogation of applicant is required in this case.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Looking to overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no change in circumstances after dismissal of first application and period of absconsion of applicant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him.
Accordingly, present ( second) MCRC for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed.