Dhanraj vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard. Case diary perused.

This is repeat (fifth) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.11/2015, registered at Police Station-

Narcotics Cell, Indore, District-Indore for commission of offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act.

As per prosecution case, on 19/11/2015, on the basis of source information, police apprehended the applicant and recovered 3.950 Kgs. opium from

the possession of the applicant, which he is carrying without having any permit or license. On the basis of which, the present case has been registered

against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime. The applicant is

in custody since 19/11/2015 and the trial is still pending. There is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial and the applicant cannot be kept in

custody for unlimited period. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of delay in trial. In support

of his contention learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the orders passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 45131/2018 (Sukhlal Vs. State of M.P.),

M.Cr.C. No. 33355/2019 (Pradeep Vs. C.B.N.), M.Cr.C. No. 20898/2019 (Rajendra Vs. State of M.P.) and M.Cr.C. No. 7097/2020 (Banti Vs. State

of M.P.).

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the prayer by contending that commercial quantity of 3.950 Kgs. opium has been recovered

from the possession of the applicant and the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail merely on the ground of delay in trial. It is also submitted that in

various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the powers of the High Court to grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. are subject

to the limitation contained in the Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act and there are no reasonable grounds available for believing that prima facie no

offence is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that the cases referred by the learned counsel for the applicant are not concerned

with the recovery of opium and in the said cases poppy straw was recovered from the possession of the applicants, therefore, this Court has granted

bail to the applicants in the aforesaid cases. Hence, these orders are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Under these circumstances, he

prays for rejection of the application.

After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this

court is of the view that commercial quantity of 3.950 Kgs. opium was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant. Considering the broad

probability given the documents on record, it is not possible for this Court to record its satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to show that the

applicant is not guilty for the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, therefore, the present application filed under

Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail is hereby rejected.

Â