Manjit Kaur vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Pranay Verma, J

This is the first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.110/2021 registered at Police Station Ringnod, District Ratlam (MP) for offence punishable under Section 8/15, 29 of the NDPS Act. The applicant is in custody since 14.10.2022.

As per the prosecution, on 09-04-2021 on receipt of a secret information the police recovered 130 quintal of contraband dodachura from a truck bearing registration No. PB/13/AW/9117 at Kalaliya Fanta in Mandsaur Ratlam Highway from co-accused Harneksingh and Surendrasingh. On recording of their memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the effect that they had taken the vehicle from the present applicant and on the ground that he is the registered owner of the vehicle, the applicant has been implicated and arrested for the present offence.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. His implication is solely on the basis of memorandum of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the fact that he is the registered owner of the vehicle. There is nothing to indicate that the vehicle was taken by the co-accused from the applicant by intimating him that the same shall be used for the purpose of transportation of the contraband. On the contrary, it is apparent from the memorandum that the co-accused had taken the vehicle for business purpose without specifying that purpose. There is no direct evidence to connect the applicant with the present crime and no recovery has been made from him. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedents. On such grounds prayer for grant of bail to the applicant has been made.

The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary.

The implication of the applicant appears to be on the basis of memorandum of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the evidence Act is the registered owner of the vehicle in which the and the fact that he11:04:00 AM contraband was being transported. There is no material to indicate that the vehicle had been taken from the applicant by informing him that the same would be used for transportation of the contraband. No recovery has been made from the applicant and he is not shown to be having any criminal antecedents. Thus in my opinion, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each out of which one shall be local surety the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.