Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshayam Singh vs The State Of M.P. Throuhg P.S. ... on 9 August, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1 MCRC-28286-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 9 th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28286 of 2024
GHANSHAYAM SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUHG P.S. INDUSTRIAL AREA JAORA
DISTRICT RATLAM
Appearance:
Shri Syed Asif Ali Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Viraj Godha, learned P.L. for the State.
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. (now section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of bail to the applicant, in connection with FIR/Crime No.843/2023, Date:-(Not mentioned) registered at P.S.-Industrial Area Jaora, District-Ratlam (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 8/15, 19 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 10.12.2023 applicant/accused was found in possession of 115 k.g. of poppy straw in 7 sacks without having any license or authority. Police had seized the aforesaid contraband from the possession of the applicant and accordingly crime has been registered against him.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed the offence and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that as per panchnama connecting inverter batteries, printer and open laptop time as mentioned as 5 p.m. on the date of incident therefore, it appears that laptop and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 12-08-2024 11:21:49 2 MCRC-28286-2024 printer had been started by team on 5 p.m. while panchanama of asking name of the applicant as prepared at 4:50 p.m. by laptop and printer therefore, entire prosecution case is suspicious. It is also submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in custody since 10.12.2023. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed. The conclusion of the trial will take sufficient long time for its disposal. Under these circumstances, prayer is made for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State has opposed the prayer of the applicant and prays for rejection of the application.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced from counsel for the parties, also considering the case diary, so far the question is related to time as mentioned in both the aforesaid panchanama is contradictory but it is a matter of evidence.
Looking to the bar as provided under section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and also considering the huge quantity of contraband, in view of the court it is not fit case to grant bail to the applicant. Resultantly, M.Cr.C. is dismissed.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE ajit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 12-08-2024 11:21:49