Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rampratap vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2020
Author: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
Bench: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.602/2020
(Rampratap Vs. State of M.P.)
-1-
Indore, Dt. 20.01.2020
Shri Ayush Jain, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Manish Verma, counsel for the respondent/State.
This is first application under section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with crime No. 68/2019 registered at P.S. Bhojpur, District Rajgarh concerning offence under section 8/21 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
As per prosecution case, on the basis of secret information total contraband article of 250 gram of Smack was recovered from 3 accused persons namely Dakhabai, Gopal and the present applicant Rampratap, on the basis of which the present case has been registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The prosecution has not complied with mandatory provisions of section 50 of the Act because the raiding party has given common notice to 3 accused persons which is not permissible in the eye of law. Moreover, no reply on the notice of section 50 has been recorded from the accused persons. It is further submitted that recovery of contraband article was made from 3 persons, however the prosecution chose to combine all of them and made a common sampling. The method of sampling done by the prosecution is wholly illegal and contrary to the established position of law. This lacuna clearly reflects the falsity of the case registered against him by the prosecution. Applicant is in custody since 27.3.2019. Investigation is over, chargesheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time. There is no possibility of absconsion of the applicant or tampering with the evidence. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.602/2020 (Rampratap Vs. State of M.P.) -1- Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and another, (2014) 5 SCC 345. It is further submitted that co-accused Dakhabai has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 47771/2019 and case of the present applicant is similar to her, hence learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Looking to the submission made by the learned counsel regarding method of sampling done by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that applicant is entitled for bail. However, without commenting on merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs only) with two solvent surities of Rs. One Lac each to the satisfaction of the trial court for is 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 473(3) Cr.P.C.. It is further directed that during the trial, the applicant shall mark his presence before the concerned police station once in a month.
This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.K.Awasthi) Judge mk MUKTA KAUSHAL 2020.01.21 17:34:41 +05'30' HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.602/2020 (Rampratap Vs. State of M.P.) -1- (S.K.Awasthi) Judge mk