Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bablu Baiga vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16527
1 MCRC-338-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 4 th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 338 of 2025
BABLU BAIGA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri R.N.Dwivedi - Advocate for the applicant.
Smt. Samta Jain - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023/439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR
No.87/2022, dated 10.02.2022, registered at Police Station – Suhagpur,
District Shahdol (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section
8/20, 25, 29 of NDPS Act. Applicant is in detention since 12.02.2022.
Applicant’s earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and
not pressed vide order dated 19.04.2023, passed in M.Cr.C.No.742/2023.
2. As per the prosecution story, on the basis of the secret information
received from the informer two vehicles were intercepted. One vehicle was
having number plate bearing registration No. M.P.- 54-CA-1425, while
another vehicle, which was Maruti Dezire was unnumbered when these
vehicles were got stopped, two persons fled away from the vehicle by
opening the gate. They could not be apprehended. The driver of the vehicle
bearing registration No.M.P.-54-CA-1425 introduced himself as Sanket Patel
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-04-2025
12:45:15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16527
2 MCRC-338-2025
and person sitting on the front seat introduced himself as Amit Patel, S/o
Ramdatt Patel, R/o Village Khalonda, District Umariya (M.P.). The person
sitting in the rear seat introduced himself as Raj Kapoor Patel. The driver of
the unnumbered vehicle introduced himself as Ajit Singh Baghel owner of
the vehicle and persons who was sitting on the front seat introduced himself
as Ravi Shanker Patel and the person sitting on rear seat introduced himself
as Bablu. They disclosed that the person who have fled away from the spot
are Lucky Sharam alias Rajat Niralla and Premlal Kahar. Procedure
contemplated under provisions of the NDPS Act was followed and from the
vehicle bearing registration No.M.P.-54-CA-1425, 15 packets whereas from
the unnumbered Maruti Dezire vehicle 15 packets, in total 30 packets were
seized from both the vehicles. In total 152.140 Kg Cannabis was recovered.
Same was made homogeneous and samples were taken. After investigation
charge sheet has been filed.
3 . Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has
not committed any offence. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated.
He was a passenger in the car and he was not aware about the contraband
being transported in the vehicle. Learned counsel placing reliance on bail
order dated 03.02.2022, passed in M.Cr.C.No.62417/2021 ( Ajay Sing &
Another Vs. State of M.P.) has submitted that in that case bail has been
granted by the coordinate bench of this court on the ground that joint notice
given to the accused person is not permissible and previous background of
the accused is not relevant for refusing the bail. Therefore, it is prayed that
applicant may be released on bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-04-2025
12:45:15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16527
3 MCRC-338-2025
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and has submitted that a huge
quantity i.e. more than 150 kg has been seized from the conscious possession
of the applicant and other co-accused persons. Referring to Section 37 of the
NDPS Act it is submitted that unless twin conditions mentioned in Section
37 of the Act are fulfilled grant of bail is not permissible.
5. As far bail orders passed by the coordinate bench of the Court is
concerned, same is not precedent on any point of law. Therefore, same has
no binding effect. As far the argument with regard to non-compliance of
section 50 of NDPS Act is concerned, it is argued that joint notice has been
given. Same is a question which can be raised in trial and can be put to the
concerned officer for obtaining explanation from the Investigation Officer
and seizure officer at the appropriate stage of trial in accordance with law.
6. In the case of Union of India Through NCB, Lucknow Vs. Md.
Nawaz Khan (Criminal Appeal No.1043 of 2021) reported in (2021) 10 SCC
100 Hon’ble Apex Court has held that non-compliance of the procedural
requirement under NDPS Act is a question of fact and same is to be raised in
the trial.
5 . In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad , reported in
(2001) 7 SCC 673 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the scope
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the light of schemes of the Act has
observed as under:-
“A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in
the mind of the court that a person accused of anSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-04-2025
12:45:15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:165274 MCRC-338-2025
offence, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five
years or more, shall generally be not released on bail.
Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception
under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For
granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the
record produced before it, be satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of the offences with which he is charged and
further that he is not likely to commit any offence while
on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions
for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the
limitations provided under the Code of Criminal
Procedure or any other law for the time being in force
regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the
matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for.” “The
length of the period of his custody or the fact that the
charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has
commenced, are by themselves not considerations that
can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief
to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”
6. In the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal ,
reported in (2022) 18 SCC 374 , a three judges Bench of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court has held as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-04-2025
12:45:15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16527
5 MCRC-338-2025
“The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the
charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced, are by
themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive
grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act.
7. In view of the aforesaid and having taken into consideration the
other facts & circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, but
without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I am of the view that
no case for grant of bail is made out. Consequently, this second bail
application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. (Section 483 of BNSS, 2023) for
grant of regular bail filed on behalf of the applicant – Bablu Baiga stands
dismissed. However, considering the detention period trial Court is directed
to conclude the trial expeditiously.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Jasleen
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 08-04-2025
12:45:15
[ad_1]
Source link