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 · 337 wordsNandita Dubey, J
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No.449/2022 registered at Police Station Chachai District Anuppur (M.P.) for the offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act.
As per the prosecution, 66.950 kg. Ganja was seized from a stationary vehicle by the police. It is stated that the driver after seeing the police party ran away from the spot. During the investigation, on the basis of registration of the vehicle, one Rajendra Prasad Rajbade was arrested, who in his memorandum has stated that his relative i.e. the present applicant has taken the vehicle from him for purchasing the vegetables, as his own vehicle has broken down. He has taken the name of present applicant along with two other persons. To verify his statement, a report was called from the counsel for the State.
As per the Panchanama dated 9.2.2023, it was found that the story put up by Rajendra Prasad Rajbade was correct and the vehicle of his relative i.e. of present applicant was parked stationary at his place from 13.10.2022.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present applicant has been falsely implicated only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused Rajendra Prasad Rajbade. Nothing has been seized from his possession or from his house. Under such circumstances, he is entitled for grant of bail.
Counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. It is pointed out that the present applicant is absconding since the date of incident. It is stated that as per the Panchanama dated 9.2.2023, the present applicant has taken the pickup vehicle of Rajendra Prasad Rajbade, as his own vehicle has broken down. As per the FIR, nearly 67 kg. Ganja was found in the pickup vehicle below the bags of garlic.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.