High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramnarayan vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 14 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 MP CK 0117

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sujoy Paul, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8, 15, 29, 31 · Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.34031 Of 2021
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

22 paragraphs · 398 words

Sujoy Paul, J

This is second application filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C arising out of crime no.163/2020 under section 8/15, 29, 31 of the NDPS Act

registered at police station Nai Abadi, Mandsaur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that his previous application M.Cr.C No.21738/2021 was not properly drafted, and therefore, it was

permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a properly constituted application.

As per prosecution story, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main accused persons are Tulsiram, Shyamlal, Anwar and Ambalal from

whose possession 142 Kg poppy straw was allegedly recovered. In the first memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the name of Sarfraz

was taken by the main accused persons by contending that 82 kg poppy straw was provided by him. The name of the present applicant was not there.

In the second memorandum, the name of present applicant appeared with the averment that 60 kg poppy straw is provided by him. By placing reliance

on AIR 1947 PC 67 (Pulukuri Kottaya Vs. Emperor) and order of this Court in M.Cr.C No.15990/2021 (Gopilal Patidar Vs. State of MP) decided on

09.04.2021, learned counsel for the applicant submits that arraignment of the applicant is solely based on the aforesaid memorandum, which has no

evidenciary value against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal record. He will co-operate with the investigation and hence he may be granted

anticipatory bail.

The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State but he did not dispute that ;-

1.

The applicant is arraigned on the basis of the said memorandum.

2.

The applicant has no criminal record.

Considering the aforesaid and in view of the order passed in Gopilal Patidar (supra) and absence of criminal record, without commenting on merits, I

find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant's arrest or surrender before the police within a month of

this order, the applicant Ramnarayan S/o Kanhiyalal Kumawat shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned. The applicant

would abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.