High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramchandra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 6 January 2020 · Citation: (2020) 01 MP CK 0006

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Awasthi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8, 15, 29 · Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 54377 Of 2019
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 · 432 words

They are heard. Perused the case diary.

This first application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his / her arrest in connection with Crime No.341/2019 registered at Police Station Pipliyamandi, District Mandsaur (MP) for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 15 and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

As per prosecution story, upon a secret information, Police seized 245 kilograms of contraband substance (poppy straw) from the possession of co-accused Ummeda Ram s/o Hari Ram. The applicant has been implicated in the present crime only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Ummeda Ram recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that at the time of seizure no contraband article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is implicated in the present crime only on the basis of disclosure statement of Ummeda Ram recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is not a legal evidence. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedents. He also submitted that the present applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation. There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on anticipatory bail. Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the application and prays for rejection of the anticipatory bail application.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting anything on the merits of the matter, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Ramchandra s/o Rameshwar shall be released on bail, upon his / her executing a personal bond in the Pithawe RC Ramesh Chandra Pithawe sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) and furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).

The applicant shall make himself / herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He / she shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.54377/2019 stands allowed.