MCRC-732-2016 (KOSHALYABAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 11-03-2016 Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the applicant. Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is third application filed by the applicant under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for grant of bail.
The first application was dismissed as withdrawn after arguing the matter for some time with liberty to file a fresh application at an appropriate stage in [CASE NUMBER] dated 06.07.2015 and the second application for temporary bail which was allowed in [CASE NUMBER] dated 15.10.2015. The temporary bail was granted for 90 days and it was submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant had surrendered after the expiry of the period for which he was granted temporary bail, the applicant was arrested by Crime Branch, Indore in [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] of [ACT].
According to the prosecution story, on 14.03.2015, the Police Station received source information and acting on such source information, the vehicle Scorpio bearing registration No.MP09-BC-8055 was intercepted and during search 61.180 kg. ganja was found in the vehicle. There were six people travelling in the vehicle including the present applicant, who was a woman and then it was further alleged that son of the present applicant- [ENTITY] was driving the vehicle.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no conscious possession on the part of the present applicant as it cannot be assumed that she was knowing the fact that contraband was also being transported by the same vehicle and for this, counsel for the applicant placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of [PRECEDENT] in which the persons arrested were found sitting on the gunny bags, in which contraband was kept and subsequently seized and in case of [PRECEDENT] and in case of [PRECEDENT]; passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in [CASE NUMBER] and reported in [CASE NUMBER]. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground that quantity seized is a commercial quantity and, at this stage, no inference can be drawn whether the present applicant had knowledge of the fact that the contraband was being transported in the vehicle.
I have gone through the case law cited by the counsel for the applicant, the applicant was travelling in the same vehicle. She is admittedly mother of the driver of the vehicle. At this stage, no inference can be drawn about her knowledge of the contraband which was seized from the vehicle.
Learned counsel for the applicant also filed copies of the order sheets of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore showing that she applied before the Magistrate that she was kept confined at Police Station Crime Branch Indore and the application was filed on 14.03.2015 about 03.00 pm. I have gone through the order sheet, at this stage, no inference can be drawn unless evidence is recorded in this matter. Accordingly, in considered opinion of this Court, there is no change in circumstances after dismissal of her first application, no case is made out for grant of bail and accordingly the application is dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE