Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sabunirsha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2020
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 MCRC-19720-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-19720-2020
(SABUNIRSHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
15
Jabalpur, Dated : 14-10-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Siddharh
Seth, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the arguing counsel is not available, therefore, he prays that the matter may be adjourned.
From perusal of earlier order-sheets, it reflects that this matter is being adjourned unnecessarily on one or the other pretext. However, during the outbreak of COVID-19 only urgent matters are being taken up through video conferencing and though Mr. Seth is not available in town but can connect himself via video conferencing. Therefore, I am not inclined to adjourn this case on that count.
This first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant for grant of bail in connection with crime No.07/2020 registered at Police Station Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, DRI Bhopal, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 9-A r/w 25-A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The case of the prosecution in short is that as per information received from some reliable source that a vehicle bearing registration No.DL-12-C- 2051 is being used for illegal transportation of 25 kg. Pseudoephedrine and four persons including the present applicant are involved in the same. On such information, a team was constituted and after following the said vehicle, present applicant alongwith other persons were searched out in which 25 kg. of Pseudoephedrine was found in a bag carried by them.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail Signature Not Verified SAN since 18.03.2020. He further submits that the applicant has falsely been Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 2020.10.15 16:54:52 IST 2 MCRC-19720-2020 implicated in the case and was infact not carrying or transporting the said narcotic substance i.e. Pseudoephedrine. He further submits that the applicant was coming to Bhopal for her treatment and as she was not familiar with the Hindi language, therefore, what was being done by the respondent/Authority in respect of making her accused, was also not known to her. He also submits that as per prosecution, the applicant was found in illegal possession of 25 kg. of Pseudoephedrine narcotic substance as the same was being illegally transported in a vehicle in which she was sitting. He further submits that the said drug does not fall within the ambit of the NDPS Act,1985, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of Delhi High Court passed in Bail Application No.1202/2013 [Niranjan Jayantilal Shah Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence].
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that even though the said drug is not a narcotic drug but it is a substance controlled under the NDPS Act, 1985.
Considering the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that a huge quantity of Pseudoephedrine was seized from the possession of the present applicant which falls within the definition of controlled drug substance as per the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India on 26.03.2013 under the powers conferred under Section 9-A of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the applicant is in jail since 18.03.2020, I am not inclined to consider this bail application and release her on bail. So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, in the said case, the Delhi High Court has granted the bail considering the period of custody in which the accused therein was in jail since 2011 and was released on bail vide order dated 19.11.2013 but not on the ground that the drug seized from the accused does not fall within the definition of narcotic drug, Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 2020.10.15 16:54:52 IST 3 MCRC-19720-2020 therefore, the said case is not applicable in the present case.
Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant stands rejected.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 2020.10.15 16:54:52 IST