2024 (1) TMI 1313 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail Application Denied Again: Court Cites Serious Drug Charges, Prior Rejections, and Lack of Changed Circumstances.

Ankur Chaudhary Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court of Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the third bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The Court cited the gravity of ... Third bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail - offence punishable under Section 8 r/w 22 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 - illegal possession of Alprazolam Powder - contraband item - HELD THAT:- Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature and gravity of the allegation and also taking note of the fact that in the present case, seized quantity of the contraband is more than the commercial quantity and there is specific bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act and also considering the allegation levelled against the applicant that he has destroyed the material evidence regarding the aforesaid crime and his two applications on earlier occasions have been rejected on merits by this Court and later on, SLP (Criminal) No. 5271/2023 filed before the Apex Court has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2023 by stating that applicant is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage. Although, 2 panch witnesses have been examined but, investigating officer is also Panch witness and he has not been examined yet, therefore, in view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, there are no material changes in the circumstances in which applicant may be entitled for grant of bail. This repeated 3rd bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed on merits. Issues:- Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.- Allegations of possession of contraband under N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.- Applicant's claim of false implication and innocence.- Examination of Panch witnesses and their turning hostile.- Previous rejections of bail applications by the Court.- Seized quantity of contraband exceeding commercial quantity.- Destruction of material evidence by the applicant.- Affirmation of previous court orders by the Hon'ble Apex Court.Analysis:The judgment pertains to the consideration of a third bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. by the Supreme Court of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The applicant has been in custody since 29/04/2022 in connection with a case registered under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The prosecution alleges that the contraband was seized from various individuals, leading to the implication of the applicant, who is accused of manufacturing the seized contraband in his factory and destroying evidence related to the crime.The applicant, through his counsel, asserts his innocence and false implication in the offense. It is highlighted that two previous bail applications were rejected by the Court, and subsequent Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) filed before the Apex Court was also dismissed. The defense emphasizes that key Panch witnesses have turned hostile, undermining the prosecution's case. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to establish that the seized materials are contraband as defined under the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant's prolonged incarceration, minimal progress in the trial, and reliance on co-accused's confessional statements are cited in support of the bail plea.On the contrary, the State, represented by the government advocate, opposes the bail plea, referencing the previous dismissal of two bail applications by the Court and the Apex Court. The State argues that there are no significant changes in circumstances warranting bail, especially since the investigating officer is yet to be examined. The State contends that the applicant's involvement in destroying evidence and the substantial quantity of contraband seized are serious considerations against granting bail.The Court, after considering the arguments and circumstances, dismisses the third bail application on merits. The decision is based on the gravity of the allegations, the applicant's previous rejections of bail, the seized quantity exceeding commercial limits, and the absence of material changes in circumstances. The Court notes the investigating officer's pending examination and the affirmation of the previous court orders by the Hon'ble Apex Court, leading to the denial of bail in this instance.