Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babu @ Siddque vs Union Of India Through P.S. Ncb Indore on 22 May, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 22 nd OF MAY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 60574 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
BABU @ SIDDQUE S/O ABDUL KADAR KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND
LABOUR PRATAPGAGH. DISTRICT
RAJASTHAN(RAJASTHAN)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI AKASH RATHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT)
AND
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH P.S. NCB INDORE DISTRICT
INDORE. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....NON-APPLICANT
(SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SONI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE NON-
APPLICANT/NCB)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Case diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
1. The applicant - Babu @ Siddique has filed this first application u/S. 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
2. The applicant has been arrested on 21/11/2022 by Police Station - NCB, Indore, District Indore(M.P.) in connection with Crime No.16/2022 registered in relation t o the offence punishable under Section 8/21 of The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(in short ..."The Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 5/24/2023 12:51:43 PM 2 NDPS Act").
3. The allegation against the applicant and other co-accused person is that on 18/10/2022 team of police personnel from Neemuch stopped a Truck bearing No.GJ-23-BD-6477 in which the co-accused Shahrukh was found in possession of 14.560 Kg Smack. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant was implicated on the basis of memorandum under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act of co-accused Shahrukh, who named the present applicant. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the Narcotics Control Bureau. The present applicant is not the owner of the said vehicle from which allegedly Smack was seized by the police. He has no connection or relation with the co- accused. Even the applicant does not know the co-accused Shahrukh. The applicant is neither the conspirator nor the abettor of the alleged offence, therefore, the provisions of Section 29 of NDPS Act does not get attracted. Nothing has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. The applicant is the sole earning member in the family and if kept in incarceration for a long time, the livelihood and financial requirements of the family members would get jeopardize. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is aged about 52 years. The applicant is permanent resident of District Indore (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed. He further submitted that the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. He further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State by (NCB) Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. in Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 5/24/2023 12:51:43 PM 3 Special Leave to Appeal(Cri.) No.242 of 2022. With the aforesaid, prayer for grant of bail is made out.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposed the bail application. He further placed reliance on the case of Union of India(NCB) Etc. Vs. Khalil Udion Etc. [Criminal Appeal No(s).1841-1842/2022 to contend that the Apex Court was conscious of the fact that the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act has not intentionally valued. However, considering the facts and circumstances on record, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and directed the appellants to be taken in custody forthwith. With the aforesaid, he prays for dismissal of the bail application.
6. In view of aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court and the fact that the present case is exactly identical to the case of Union India Vs. Khalil(supra), I am of the view that no case for grant of bail is made out.
7. Consequently, the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant stands rejected.
8. Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) V. JUDGE pn Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 5/24/2023 12:51:43 PM 4 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 5/24/2023 12:51:43 PM