Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Safi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2015
M.Cr.C. No.8219/2014 01.09.2015
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy. A. G. for the non- applicant - State.
Heard. Perused the case diary.
This first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail has been filed by the applicant - Mohammad Safi S/o Fajje Khan, who is implicated in Crime No.38/2008 registered at Police Station - Ratangarh for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and is in custody since 16.06.2014.
2. As per case diary, the allegation against the present applicant and co-accused is that they were illegally transporting 4 quintal & 70 kilograms of Poppy Husk in Mahindra pick-up vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-04- GA-0474. When the vehicle was intercepted, both the accused persons (applicant and co-accused Rajkumar Chandak) ran away from the place of occurrence on 09.04.2008. During search, ownership agreement and other papers have been seized from the offending vehicle. As per agreement, Rajkumar Chandak S/o Bhanwarlal Chandak was the registered owner of the vehicle in question. The applicant had purchased the aforesaid vehicle from its registered owner.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the statement of Dilip (PW-1), Govind Singh (PW-2), Shyamlal (PW-3), Suresh (PW-4), Habib (PW-5), Mahesh Shukla (PW-6) and Girija Prasad (PW-7) and submitted that the material prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. It is also pointed out that as per case diary, the registered owner of the vehicle is Rajkumar Chandak and, therefore, on the basis of notarized agreement, it cannot be said that the present applicant is the vehicle owner.
4. He also placed reliance in the case of Mohsin vs. State of M. P. decided by this Court on 25.06.2015 in M.Cr.C. No.1899/2015. In the aforesaid matter, some of the co-accused persons have been acquitted by the Special Judge vide order dated 28.02.2012 on the ground that there was violation of the mandatory requirement of Sections 52-A and 55 of the NDPS Act. After their acquittal, the applicant- Mohsin was arrested and, thereafter, his application was allowed vide order dated 25.06.2015. In the case of Mohsin (supra), the facts are distinguishable and, therefore, the same will not apply in the present case.
5. In the case of Devendra Kumar vs. State of M. P. through P. S. Pipliyamandi reported in 2011 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 241, the applicant - Devendra Kumar purchased new motorcycle in exchange and Rs.37,500/- was paid by the applicant and the value of old Yamaha motorcycle was assessed to Rs.11,000/- by the said dealer. Later on, the said motorcycle which was sold by the applicant to M/s Kumar Motors Ghatol was sold to one Mangilal and Mangilal sold it to one Devilal, who had sold it to one Murtaja Bohra at Neemuch and at the time of offence under NDPS Act, the Yamaha motorcycle was owned by Murtaza Bohra and, thus, this Court has held that there is no material to prove and establish that with the applicant's knowledge, Yamaha motorcycle was used for commission of the offence. Thus, the said decision is also distinguishable and the same will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
6. As per report dated 27.10.2014, in number of cases, the present applicant has been implicated and trial of all those cases are going on in the State of Rajasthan, the present applicant is a habitual offender.
7. Considering the statements of prosecution witnesses and material evidence available in the case diary, no case for grant of bail, as prayed is made out. M.Cr.C. No.8219/2014 has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
(P. K. Jaiswal) Judge gp