High CourtsSingle Bench

Hari Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 2 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 MP CK 0015

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prakash Chandra Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8, 15, 25, 29 · Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 33788 Of 2023
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 · 461 words

Prakash Chandra Gupta, J

1.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

2 . T his is first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail, as the applicant/accused is apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR/Crime No.546/2022 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station - Shamgarh, District - Mandsaur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act.

3.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.12.2022, two unknown persons were transporting Poppy Straw in Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No.MP-14-CG-2565, after seeing the Police, both the aforesaid persons fled away from the spot. The Police has searched the vehicle and it was found that there was 480 kg of Poppy Straw in the vehicle. The Police had seized the aforesaid contraband substance from the aforesaid vehicle and FIR was lodged against the unknown persons. During investigation, it was found that the aforesaid vehicle was registered in the name of co-accused Govind. The Police had arrested the co-accused Govind and his statement under Section 27 of Evidence Act was recorded. In his statement, the co-accused Govind had disclosed that the contraband was transported by Ishwar and Kamlesh. Co-accused Radheshyam is supplier of contraband and the contraband was kept in the courtyard (Bada) of the present applicant and the aforesaid contraband was to be supplied to co-accused Shyam.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not committed the offence and has falsely been implicated in the case only on the ground of memorandum statement given by the co-accused Govind. No contraband substance was seized from the possession of the present applicant. No legal evidence is available against him in the case diary. He is a reputed person, if Police arrests him, his reputation will be tarnished therefore, prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

5.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has objected the prayer of the applicant and prayed for its rejection.

6.

Having considered the rival submission and after perusal of case diary so also considering the fact and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to the enlarged on anticipatory bail hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

7.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant - Hari Singh shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the Trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8.

M.Cr.C. stands disposed of, accordingly. Certified copy, as per Rules.