Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Gujar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2015
M. Cr. C. No. 18309 /2 014
14. 01. 201 5 Shri Sank alp K ochar, learned couns el for th e applicant .
Shri R.S. Shuk la, learned Panel Lawy er for th e non- appli cant/State.
Heard argum ents .
Perus ed cas e diary and m aterial on record. This is firs t applicat ion by the appli cant un der Section 4 39 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crim e No. 4 52 /2 01 4 , regis tere d at Police Station, B egum ganj , Dis trict Rais en, agains t h im for the offences punis hable under Sections 8 read with 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Ps y chotropi c Subs tan ces Act, 1 98 5 (for short 'the Act').
Pros ecution allegati ons are that from the back of the hous e of the appli cant two plants of Ganj a were found, which the applicant had illega lly planted. Th e total weight of the s eized Ganj a plant is 9 k g. and 2 00 gram s .
L earned couns el for the applicant s ubm its that th e applicant is in cus tody s ince 3 1 .1 0 .2 01 4 and the ch a rge sheet had been laid before the Court. It is a ls o subm itted by him that the s eized Ganj a plants were found in the back of the hous e of the applicant, wh ich is an open place . T here is no docum entary ev iden ce that the s aid open place belongs to the applicant . I t is further s ubm itted by him that the Seizing Officer weighed two Ganj a plants including roots , stem s , leav es , etc. Whereas he ought to hav e weighed on ly flowering or fruiting tops of the seized plants as per the definit ion of Ganj a giv en in Section 2 (6 ) of the A ct. In s upport of the contention, learned couns el relied on a decis ion of this Court rendered in a m atter of Kadorila l Raghuv ans hi Vs . State of M.P. 2 00 5 (5 ) M.P.H.T. 3 8 (N.O.C.). I t is als o s ubm itted by him th a t ev en if the total weight of Ganj a is tak en in to cons ideration, the quantity of Ganj a is below com m ercial one. U pon thes e s ubm iss ions , the pray er is m ade for grant of bail.
L earned Panel L awy er has oppos ed the pray er for grant of bail.
Cons idering the facts and circum s tances of th e cas e and the subm is s ions made on behalf of the parties by their couns el, but without expres s ing any opinion on m erits of the cas e, I am of the v iew that it is a fit ca s e for grant of bail. Hence, the applica tion is allowed. I t is , therefore, ordered that applicant Sun il Guj a r be releas ed on bail on his furnis hing a pers onal bon d in the s um of Rs . 25, 000/- (Ru p ees tw en t y f ive th ou s a nd on ly) with one s olv ent s urety in lik e am ou n t to the s atis faction of the Court concerne d for h is appearance on all the dates as m ay be fixed by it. I n cas e of bail j um p, the Court concerned will hav e power to cancel the applicant 's bail.
Certified copy as per rules .
(Raj endra Mahaj an) Judge ac/-