Vinod Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

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.332/2019 registered at Police Station Nahargarh, 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 22 kilograms of contraband substance (poppy straw / husk) from the joint possession of co-accused persons namely, Karudas and Dharmendra. The applicant has been implicated in the present crime only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused persons recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that at the time of seizure neither any contraband article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant nor he is the possession holder of the place from where the alleged contraband article has been recovered. The applicant is implicated in the present crime only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused persons namely, Karudas and Dharmendra 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. He also submitted that co-accused Ajad Husein has already been enlarged on bail by order dated 30.12.2019 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.54397/2019; and the case of the present applicant is akin to him. 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 on the ground of parity with co-accused Ajad Husein s/o Niyaj Mohammad, 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 Vinod Singh s/o Bapu Singh Rajpoot shall be released on bail, upon his / her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) and furnishing two separate solvent sureties of Rs.75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) 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.54925/2019 stands allowed.