CHAND KHAN Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is first bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.PC. The applicant is in custody with effect from 26-3-09 in connection with Crime No. 192/09, registered at Police Station, City Kotwali, Mandsaur for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act').

(2.) As per prosecution allegation on the information of the informant a raid was conducted near Pashupatinath Mahadeo Temple Gate, Mandsaur. Thereupon two persons were found standing and inside two bags were there. Thereafter, the search of the bags was taken, wherein possibility of Poppy Straw was found. They were apprised of their right under Section 50 of NDPS Act. The entire investigation was conducted and then offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act was registered against them.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate, Shri Z.A. Khan contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted by him that he was illegally detained about 10 days back City Kotwali, Mandsaur for the offence registered under Sections 323, 294, 506 and 506/34 of the IPC, on a complaint made by one Aarif Parshad, joining the applicant as one of the accused. In Sessions Trial No. 134/07, pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur the present applicant was the accused and required to appear along with other accused person in the said Court on 25-3-09, i.e., date fixed for evidence. The applicant could not have apear however , 2nd Addititional 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-, Mandsaur directed to forfeit the bail bonds of applicant and to recover the amount from surety. The co-accused of the said case has filed an application on the same day, ue., 25-3-09, for recalling the order of forfeiture of the bail bonds specifying the fact thatJhe applicant has been kept into illegal custody in City Kotwali, Mandsaur in Grime No. 161/09, ue.., the offence registered on the complaint of Aarif Parshad. In support of the said application affidavit was filed; later on, the Court has passed the order on 25-3-09 itself and recalled the order of forfeiture of bail bonds, satisfying the reason of the absence of applicant. It is also contended that because the application was filed in the Court complaining the illegal custody; however, showing the incident of night and intervening night of 25/26-3-09 the present applicant has been made accused in this case under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act, though, he was already in the illegal custody in the same policestation. Iff view of the aforesaid itis urged that prima facie it is a case of false implication.