Ankur Chaudhary vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 906

J. K. MAHESHWARI, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Ankur Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sidharth Dave Senior, Advocate, Ms. Akriti Advocate, Mr. Adil Vasudeva Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Advocate, Mr. Prateek Yadav Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan Advocate, Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg Advocate, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi Advocate, Mr. Astik Gupta Advocate, Ms. Akanksha Tomar Advocate, Mr. Argha Roy Advocate, Mr. Ojaswini Gupta Advocate, Ms. Ruby Advocate

JUDGMENT :

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

The petitioner is in custody since last more than two years in connection with FIR No. 305 of 2022 registered at Police Station-Chandan Nagar, District Indore (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act” for brevity).

2. Previously, when the petitioner approached this Court, vide order dated 15.5.2023, his bail petition was not entertained. However, liberty was granted to approach the trial Court for bail, after the examination of the panch witnesses.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the panch witnesses viz., PW3 (Sunder Pal) and PW4 (Vinod Rathore) have been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution. On being applied afresh, the trial Court rejected his bail application only on the pretext that the Investigation Officer may also be a panch witness who has yet to examine. The High Court also rejected the bail application affirming those findings by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that in the facts of this case, the Investigation Of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document