ISHWARSINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By This Fourth Application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Ishwarsingh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No.597/2011 registered by police station Y.D. Nagar, District Mandsaur for offence under Sections 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

(2.) Counsel For The Applicant Has Vehemently Urged the fact that the applicant is innocent and he has full chance of success in the trial. Moreover, Counsel submitted that all the coaccused had already be released on bail except the present applicant. Counsel further submitted that on the last occasion this Court had observed that coaccused Antim has been granted bail on 12/10/2012; whereas the applicant was in jail since 25/1/2012 and the said order was well within the knowledge of this Court. Counsel submitted that there was some confusion regarding the dates and the order dated 12/10/2010 pertains to a different case in which co accused Antim was implicated. In that case contraband of 4.5 kg. opium has been seized from the joint possession of the coaccused Antim and the applicant in M.Cr.C. No.6049/2010. Counsel submitted that contraband of 18 kg. heroin and 20 kg. opium has been seized from the possession of coaccused Antim but he has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 22/7/2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2651/2013. Counsel submitted that the present applicant has been implicated only on the basis of memos under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, Counsel submitted that there was no evidence available on record against the present applicant. Counsel submitted that the witlessness had turned hostile in Court and the offence under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act cannot be proved against the present applicant. Hence, on the grounds of parity,Counsel prayed for grant of bail.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that huge quantity of contraband has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. Counsel further submitted that the present applicant is the supplier of the contraband. Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.