Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Alias Rajendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2017
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20506/2017 (Raju vs. State of M.P.)
M.Cr.C. No.20506/2017
(Raju @ Rajendra vs. The State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated: 15/12/2017
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, learned Public
Prosecutor for the respondent / State.
This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Raju @ Rajendra, who has been arrested by Police on 21/09/2017 in Crime No.54/2017, Police-Station Nahargarh, District Mandsaur, with regard to offence(s) under Section(s) 8 /18, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary.
Allegedly, on the basis of a secret information, a trap was laid by police on 28/01/2017, in which one Dashrath was apprehended with 2 kgs., of opium in his possession. Further the case of the prosecution is that on interrogation, Dashrath revealed that he procured the opium from the present petitioner.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no other evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged crime, except the disclosure statement, said to have been made by Dashrath to 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20506/2017 (Raju vs. State of M.P.) the effect that he procured the opium from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, the prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor submitting that Mahavirdas, Durgalal, Mukesh, Ashok, Kawarlal, Kamal and Gopal, who have been examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, have stated, that the petitioner used to supply opium to Dhasrath. However, it is noticeable that these statements made by the aforesaid witnesses are merely of hearsay nature. The only connecting link happens to be the disclosure statement, said to have been made by Dhasrath, however, in absence of discovery of any facts, the same is legally inadmissible. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is also having criminal antecedents in the same nature, however, in the absence of any legal evidence, the same is inconsequential.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Judicial Magistrate First Class, he shall be released on bail, subject 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20506/2017 (Raju vs. State of M.P.) to the condition that he shall make himself available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Sumati DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, Jagadeesan 2.5.4.20=c924c30fdbbbe5bd3576e03ddd1 b95d94f157e8aec842e0acdbeed50df8785 6b, cn=Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2017.12.19 10:48:06 +05'30'