Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Anjuli Palo, J.
Bhura@gajendra Pandey - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 31711 of 2020
Decided On : 14-10-2020
Bail - NDPS Act - The court granted bail to the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on the ground of parity and the likelihood of trial delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested for possession of Onrex Syrup with Codeine and charged under Sections 8-B, 21, and 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 5/13 of the Drugs Control Act. The applicant claimed to be falsely implicated and sought bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused and the potential delay in trial due to the pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail application, considering the circumstances and the potential trial delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for the applicant charged under NDPS Act and Drugs Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted bail based on the ground of parity with a co-accused and the potential delay in trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and surety, with a caution that the bail would be ineffective if the applicant is found involved in a similar offence in the future.
JUDGMENT
Anjuli Palo, J. - This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant- Bhura @ Gajendra Pandey, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.259/2020 registered at Police StationGurh District- Rewa for commission of offence under Sections 8-B, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 5/13 of the Drugs Control Act.
2. Prosecution story against the applicant is that 108 Onrex Syrup having Codeine have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused, therefore, aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant has no criminal past. He is in custody since 19.07.2020. He is the first offender. The co-accused was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.9.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.30203/2020 and case of the applicant is similar to that accused. It is also submitted that due to outbreak of Corona Virus pandemic, trial will take considerable time, hence, it is prayed that applicant be released on bail on the ground of parity.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has strongly opposed the bail application.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that due to COVID 19 pandemic situation, the trial would take considerable time, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed . It is directed that Bhura @ Gajendra Pandey, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance on the dates so fixed by that Court during trial.
6. It is made clear that if the applicant is found involved in similar offence in future, this order of bail shall stand ineffective.
7. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and disposed of.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
