ORDER

1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Mohan S/o. Sitaram Gurjar under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR dated 12.10.2019, lodged at Crime No.180 of 2019 at Police Station Kukdeshwer, Neemuch for the offences punishable under sections 8/15 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and for quashing the subsequent proceedings emanating there from.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 12.10.2019, on the basis of a secret information received from an informer, a Bolero car bearing registration No.RJ-27-GB-3155 was apprehended, however, the persons occupying the same absconded from the scene, and from the said vehicle 357 kg of poppy straw was seized, which was kept in 21 sacks. Subsequently, co-accused Sundarlal was arrested on 29.1.2020, who in his memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has stated that the present petitioner was piloting the aforesaid Bolero vehicle through his motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-44-MD-8077, and thus, on the basis of the said memo, present petitioner has been arraigned in the present case.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the aforesaid memo, there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the offence. It is also submitted that this Court in various other cases have also allowed the petitions and has discharged the accused persons, who have been arraigned only on the basis of the memo prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Chandra Agrawal & Anr. v. Union of India passed in Criminal Appeal No.1273 of 2021 dated 25.10.2021, and also a decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in the case of Kamta Prasad @ K.P. Jaiswal v. The State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C. No.1803 of 2022 dated 26.9.2022.

5. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. It is submitted that as per the recent decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar reported as 2022 SCC Online SC 2087/LiveLaw (SC) 622, the Supreme Court has also reflected upon the decision rendered by it earlier, in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported as (2021) 4 SCC 1, and

has held that an accused can take advantage of the aforesaid decision of Tofan Singh (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing, after completing of the trial. Thus, it is submitted that the present stage when only the charge-sheet has been filed, the petition is premature as the petitioner will have ample opportunity to contest the trial and he can certainly argue that no case is made against him at the time of final hearing of the trial as provided in the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court in the case of Samarth Kumar (supra).

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the record, it is found that so far as the intimation given by the informer is concerned, it was given on 12.10.2018 at 11:15 AM, in which it is informed that the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-27-GB-3155 is being accompanied by its driver, one Sundar S/o. Nathulal Rathore and Mohan S/o. Sitaram Gurjar (the petitioner herein), who is also the adopted son of Raghunath Gurjar and the aforesaid truck/vehicle needs to be apprehended at the earliest. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner’s name was informed to the concerned police station even before he was arrested, as he was arrested subsequently on 11.6.2023. It is also found that in the case-diary, certain CDRs are also available and according to the counsel for the State, the petitioner’s location has also been found on the spot.

8. In the dec