Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.
Prahlad Chouhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
M.Cr.C. No. 1994 of 2024
Decided on : 15-02-2024
Bail - NDPS Act - Sections 8, 15, 37 - The court emphasized the stringent conditions for bail under the NDPS Act, highlighting the necessity of demonstrating reasonable grounds for belief in innocence, which were not met in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a seventh bail application under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, after being in custody since January 24, 2019, for allegedly transporting a large quantity of contraband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any material change in circumstances since previous bail applications were rejected, and the quantity of contraband was significant.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act given the circumstances of the case and previous rejections of bail applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that under section 37 of the NDPS Act, the burden lies on the applicant to show reasonable grounds for belief in innocence, which was not satisfied.
Result: The seventh bail application is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
ORDER :
They are heard. Perused the case-diary.
This is the SEVENTH bail application filed by applicant under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as he is implicated in connection with Crime No. 04/2019, registered at Police Station - Narcotic Cell, Indore (M.P.) for offence punishable under section 8/15 of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant is in custody since 24-1-2019.
2. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10-2-2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 52504/2019, second application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 7-1-2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 45795/2020, third application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the prayer after three weeks vide order dated 23-7-2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 14791/2021, fourth application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 23-11-2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 46818/2021, fifth application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 24-3-2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11877/2022, sixth application for temporary bail was allowed for a period of two months vide order dated 13-3-2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7871/2023 and also an application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code was also dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 15-12-2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 21643/2023 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
3. As per prosecution story, 24-1-2019, Office of Narcotic Cell, Indore received secret information regarding illegal transportation of contraband. Acting upon the said information, office of Narcotic Cell intercepted Mahindra Tractor bearing Registration No. MP-14-AD-0997 and recovered 1 Qt and 92 kg poppy-straw from the possession of present applicant. Accordingly, offence has been registered and applicant has been arrested.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. No further custodial investigation is required. There is no legal evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the aforementioned offence. He is in jail since 24-1-2019. He is a permanent resident of District-Mandsaur. Final conclusion of trial shall take sufficient long time. In the trial Court, charges have been framed on 11-10-2021, but still the trial has not been concluded. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the orders dated 31-1-2018, 3-3-2017, 24-7-2017, 28-2-2017 and 19-6-2017 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 2644/2018, 1055/2017, 2826/2017, 11691/2016 and 3631/2017 respectively and argued that the prosecution has failed to examine all witnesses since last two years.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhakar Rao vs. State of M. P. in SPL (Cri.) No. 359/2024, Lal Bahadur @ Naveen Chouhan in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 2913/2022, Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. State of W. B. in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 5769/2022 and Tapas Mondal vs. State of W. B. in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 8464/2023 and also placed reliance upon the orders dated 23-6-2023, 21-6-2023, 21-6-2023, 23-6-2023 and 15-6-2023 passed in Cr. A. Nos. 8664/2022, 7297/2023, 7008/2023 and 1331/2020 and 7203/2023. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid cited orders, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.
6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that the applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected on merits. Further, he has also drawn attention towards the judgment passed by Full Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613 and submitted that only 7 witnesses are yet to be examined before the trial Court and trial Court is trying to conclude the trial but only on the basis custody period, the applicant cannot be release
The court reinforced that the stringent bail provisions under the NDPS Act require clear evidence of innocence, which was lacking in this case.
Extended judicial custody without trial and lack of evidence of possession justify bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires clear evidence of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending, especially for serious crimes.
The stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied for granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious narcotic offences.
The judgment established that the prolonged incarceration and the absence of criminal antecedents can be considered in granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, even in cases involving commerci....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the petitioner's direct involvement is not established, and there is a lack of evidence sho....
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
