Shivram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Subodh Abhyankar, J

1] They are heard. Perused the case diary / challan papers.

2] This is the fifth bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as he/she is implicated in connection with Crime No.51/2019 registered at Police Station Jeeran, District Neemuch (MP) for offence punishable under Section 8/15, 29 and 25 of the NDPS Act. T he applicant is in custody since 31/03/2022. His earlier applications have already been dismissed.

3] The allegation against the applicant is that he was also involved in the aforesaid case in which 1 qunital 20 kg poppy straw has been seized from a vehicle Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.RJ-24-CA-4622 and subsequently it was found that the applicant is the owner of the said vehicle.

4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that although the defence of the applicant is that he had already sold the aforesaid vehicle to some other person. However, considering the fact that he has also spent around two years of incarceration and till date only one witness out of 17 witnesses has been examined and the conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficient long time, the application be allowed.

5] Counsel has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. State of West Bengal passed in Special leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769/2022 in which the accused was let off after one year and seven months of incarceration. Thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed.

6] Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that two other cases of NDPS Act have been registered against the applicant.

7] On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the case-diary and looking to the fact that two other cases of NDPS Act have also been registered against the applicant in the State of Rajasthan, although in both the cases he has already been granted bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant cannot claim parity with the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan (supra). No case for grant of bail is made out, looking to the criminal antecedents of the applicant.

8] Accordingly, the application is dismissed.