AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Crime No.
Under Section
Police Station
161/2020
8/20 NDPS Act
Kantafod District Dewas
1.Defects as pointed out by the office, stands ignored.
As declared by the petitioner, this is the first application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
The bail is pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner only on the ground that only small quantity of 5 kg cannabis has been recovered from possession of the petitioner.
Learned panel lawyer submitted that in similar circumstances, co-accused Prem Singh has been denied bail vide order dated 14/08/2020 passed in M.Cr.C No.27277/2020.
It is further pleaded that total 21 kg cannabis was recovered near Vaishnodevi Dhaba where all the 5-6 accused persons were present. In the case of recovery and seizure of contraband from more than one accused, the quantity recovered from an individual cannot be segregated or be considered in isolation of the total recovery. while considering the bail, total quantity and impact of the crime has to be assessed. Therefore, it is prayed that bail be not granted to the petitioner.
In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner referred judgment dated 11.05.2020 rendered in CRA No.918/2000, wherein, both the appellants therein Laxman and Karansingh have been awarded separate punishment for respective quantities recovered from their possession.
In the case referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, individual quantity was recovered from the appellants but in the present case, the facts are slightly different. Besides, the issue that the respective quantity recovered from the accused persons have to be considered independently or jointly has not been considered in the case referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Considering the order passed in the petition of co-accused Premsingh, I am not inclined to allow the bail to the petitioner, therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.