IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA ON THE 5^th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37634 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

RAMNIWAS @ RAMARAM JAAT S/O DHANNARAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST INDRAS DISTRICT NAGAUR RAJASTHAN (RAJASTHAN)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI APOORV JOSHI-ADVOCATE )

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION AGAR DISTRICT AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAHUL SOLANKI-GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This application coming on for Order this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

They are heard. Perused the case diary /challan papers.

2. This is the First application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.539/2020 registered at Police Station Agar, District Agara (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 8/15, 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. The applicant is in custody since 16.06.2022.

4. As per the prosecution, on receipt of a discreet information, 5 Signature Not Verified quintal 38 Kg contraband 'Dodachura" was recovered from a truck bearing Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT registration No. RJ-07-GA7415 which was lying in an unattended condition. On production warrant being issued against the owner of the vehicle Moolaram he was arrested in the present case and on recording of memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that he had been carrying on the transportation of the said contraband alongwith co-accused Mangilal Rathore and the present applicant, he has been implicated and arrested for the present offence.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. Besides memorandum of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act , there is no other material available on record to connect the applicant with the present case. No recovery has been made from the applicant and there is no direct evidence linking him to the present crime. On such grounds prayer for grant of bail to the applicant has been made.

6. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegations leveled against the applicant and the material collected by the prosecution against him, he is not entitled to be released on bail .

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary.

8. The implication of the applicant appears to be solely on the basis of the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of co-accused Moolaram. No recovery has been made from the applicant and there is no other direct evidence linking the applicant to the present crime. Though the applicant is shown to be having one more criminal antecedents against him but in that case itself he has been granted bail by the High Court of Rajasthan vide Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHoMrIder dated 02-09-2021 in bail Application No. 7155/2021. Thus, in my PRASHANT opinion, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

9. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

10. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA)

JUDGE rashmi Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI