High CourtsSingle Bench

Sandeep vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 19 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 MP CK 0091

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Dwivedi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8, 20
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 41259 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

7 paragraphs · 432 words

Sanjay Dwivedi, J

1.

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/Crime No.101/2022 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P) for the offence under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act.

2 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been made accused only on the basis of memoramdum of co-accused, who have been arrested by the police and seizure made from them. He submits that even after taking name of the present applicant by co-accused persons, Investigating Officer has not collected any material showing any connection of the present applicant with those who have been arrested by the police. He submits that in absence of any such material and only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused, the present applicant cannot be made an accused. Under such circumstance, applicant be released on bail.

3.

The counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submitted that co-accused persons have been arrested by the police with a huge quantity of narcotic substance and they have informed that said narcotic substance was to be supplied to the present applicant and only on the basis this fact, the present applicant is made an accused on the basis of memorandum of co-accused and he cannot get benefit of anticipatory bail. The interrogation of present applicant is required and only after his arrest, it can be done, therefore, according to him, bail application deserves to be rejected. He further submits that present applicant has past criminal antecedent of two cases of Excise Act registered against him.

4.

Considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicant and the fact that present applicant has been made an accused on the basis of memorandum of co-accused and even though, nothing has been collected indicating any connection of the present applicant with those co-accused who have been arrested by police, I am inclined to grant the benefit of the anticipatory bail to the applicant. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.

5.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer/Arresting Officer of the Police Station concerned.

6.

The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified Copy as per rules