AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.PC for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 16/09/2019 in connection with Crime
No.05/2019 registered at Police Station Narcotics Bureau, Gwalior (M.P.) for offence under Section 8/20(b)(II)(c) of NDPS Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that this is first bail application on behalf of applicant- Anil Pal who has been arrested on
16/09/2019 for offence under Sections 8/20(b)(II)(c) of NDPS Act. It is further submitted that only 34KG of Ganja was recovered from the custody
of the present applicant and one co-accused â€" Madhuri was also arrested in this case, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide
order dated 22/10/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.43575/2019. The present applicant is on same footing rather the custody period of present applicant is
more than that of co-accused â€" Madhuri. Hence, seeks parity with the co-accused â€" Madhuri and prays grant of bail to the applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions and has submitted that the bail application of co-accused- Madhuri was
considered without notice to the State. Therefore, one M.Cr.C. has been filed against the bail order passed with regard to co-accused â€" Madhuri,
which is pending consideration as M.Cr.C. No.50685/2019. In support of his version, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Union of India Vs. Niyazuddin SK and another [2018 (13) SCC 738 ]and another judgment reported in Union of India Vs. Ishdan Seikh @ Ishdan SK
[2016 ALL SCR (Cri) 1561] and has submitted that in the aforesaid case, the order passed by the High Court under such facts has been over-ruled by
the Apex Court. Hence, prayed either to reject the present bail application or list along with pending M.Cr.C. No.50685/2019.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through Video Conferencing and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the record.
It is apparent that the applicant has been arrested on the date of incident itself i.e. 16/09/2019 and 34KG of Ganja has been seized from the custody of
the present applicant. The quantity seized from the possession of the applicant is commercial quantity and the co-accused â€" Madhuri has been
granted bail by this Court considering that she was a lady. Parity is not the right of the accused rather it is the discretion of the Court to distinguish the
facts of the case with regard to different co-accused of the case.
Considering the allegations levelled against the applicant and its gravity, the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on merits of
the case, at this stage, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, it is rejected as the present applicant is not on same footing
with co-accused.
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information.