Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the application for bail. The Court considered the applicant's submission that he has been falsely implicated and that he possesses a valid license for purchasing drugs, a fact verified by the prosecution. Crucially, the Court noted that the State could not controvert the applicant's assertion that two separate crime numbers were registered for seizures made from the same place at the same time. The Court also took into account that other co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail in a related case (Crime No. 718/2022) registered on the same day and time for other seized items. The Court directed the applicant's release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to his cooperation in the investigation and trial, submission of documents when required, and compliance with Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

The applicant, Ashish Kumar Vishwakarma, proprietor of AV Pharma, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. He was in custody since January 19, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 715/2022 registered at P.S. Jamodi, District Sidhi, for offences under the NDPS Act and the M.P. Drugs Control Act. The prosecution alleged that 7200 bottles of cough syrup and 8000 tablets were recovered from below a bridge on November 19, 2022, and attributed ownership to the applicant. The applicant claimed false implication based on a co-accused's memorandum and presented his medical shop registration and drug purchase license, which the State did not dispute. He argued the medicines were purchased under GST No.BPYPV9863GIZT and the vehicle was stopped on the National Highway, not recovered from below a bridge. He also pointed out that two separate cases were registered on the same day and time from the same seizure location.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of possessing contraband substances and the applicant's defense. The applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated, relying on the memorandum of a co-accused. He emphasized that he operates a registered medical shop and possesses a valid license to purchase medicines, facts not disputed by the State. He contended that the medicines were purchased under GST No.BPYPV9863GIZT and the vehicle was intercepted on the National Highway, contradicting the prosecution's claim of recovery from below a bridge. Furthermore, he highlighted that two separate crime numbers were registered for seizures made from the same location at the same time, a point the State could not controvert. The State, represented by the Deputy Government Advocate, did not present any counter-arguments or dispute the applicant's submissions regarding his license and the registration of two separate cases from the same seizure point.