High CourtsSingle Bench

Dilip Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 29 March 2022 · Citation: (2022) 03 MP CK 0080

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subodh Abhayankar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 451, 457, 482 · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8, 15
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 15915 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

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

9 paragraphs · 390 words

Subodh Abhyankar, J

Heard.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for modification of the order dated 12/11/2021 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act) Jawad, District Neemuch whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451, 457 of Cr.P.C. for supurdgi of his vehicle Hero Super Splender bearing registration No.MP-44 MQ-9575 has been allowed with certain conditions including that he would also file the Fixed Deposit of Rs.25,000/- towards the supurdgi.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid vehicle was found to be involved in a criminal case No.168/2021 under the provisions of Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 wherein 33.6 kg of poppy straw has been seized from the possession of accused Jaswant and Rahul, however, against the applicant, no allegation of involvement is made, however, the motorcycle used by the accused persons belongs to the present petitioner.

Counsel has further submitted that although the aforesaid application for supurdgi filed under Section 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed with a condition that the FD of Rs.25,000/- of Nationalized Bank be deposited by the petitioner, which the petitioner is not able to comply with due to his poor financial status, however, he is ready to comply with all the other conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court. Thus, it is submitted that instead of the aforesaid condition of depositing of FD of Rs.25,000/-, a reasonable condition of furnishing surety of the said amount be imposed.

Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the appropriate orders may be passed.

On due consideration of rival submissions and on perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner on record including the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the condition of producing the receipt of FDR of Rs.25,000/- is onerous in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the same is hereby modified to the extent that the petitioner will now be require to furnish surety of Rs.35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) instead of FDR of Rs.25,000/-. So far as the other conditions of the order dated 12/11/2021 passed by the Trial Court are concerned, the same shall remain unaltered.

M.Cr.C. accordingly stands disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.