Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Mohan, S/o. Sitaram Gurjar – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer Through Police Station Kukdeshwar Neemuch (Madhya Pradesh) – Respondent
ORDER :
SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J.
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 29.01.2020, 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 be
Reliance solely on a memo under Section 27 for implicating an accused is insufficient without concrete evidence; such reliance does not justify quashing charges nor can it substitute for substantial ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a change in circumstances for subsequent bail applications to be considered, as well as the importance of establishing a substa....
Bail – Failure to mention relevant evidence does not entitle a person to file subsequent bail application without change in circumstances.
A confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for conviction without safeguards. Even in cases involving commercia....
The court confirmed that under Section 37 NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to re-offend.
The main legal point established is the inadmissibility of retracted statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act and the need for corroboration of evidence in drug-related cases.
The court ruled that anticipatory bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act when the accused is implicated through co-accused confessions and has a history of drug offenses.
The court denied bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the necessity of reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offenses.
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
