Ankur Chaudhary v State of MP

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.
2 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-01-2024

in MCRC No. 50393/2023 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Indore)
ANKUR CHAUDHARY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 78978/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT and IA No. 78979/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 28-05-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
(VACATION BENCH)
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Akriti, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Adil Vasudeva, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Yadav, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Adv.
Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi,, Adv.
Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.
Mr. Argha Roy, Adv.
Ms. Ojaswini Gupta,Adv.
Ms. Ruby, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
The petitioner is in custody since last more than two
Nidhi Ahuja
Date: 2024.05.29
16:17:19 IST
years in connection with FIR No. 305 of 2022 registered at

Reason:
1
SLP (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
Police StationChandan Nagar, District Indore (M.P.) for the
offence punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 22 and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act” for brevity).
Previously, when the petitioner approached this Court,
vide order dated 15.5.2023, his bail petition was not
entertained. However, liberty was granted to approach the trial
Court for bail, after the examination of the panch witnesses.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
panch witnesses viz., PW3 (Sunder Pal) and PW4 (Vinod
Rathore) have been examined and they have not supported the
case of prosecution. On being applied afresh, the trial Court
rejected his bail application only on the pretext that the
Investigation Officer may also be a panch witness who has yet
to examine. The High Court also rejected the bail application
affirming those findings by the impugned order.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
State submits that in the facts of this case, the Investigation
Officer may be treated as panch witness; therefore, the High
Court has rightly rejected the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have
2
SLP (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
considered the facts and all attending circumstances including
the period of custody and also the previous orders where this
Court while rejecting the bail was of the view that after the
panch witness depose, fresh recourse may be taken.
Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not
supported the case of prosecution. On facts, we are not
inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as a panch
witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within
a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates
against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional
liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section
37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be
considered.
In view of the above, we are inclined to allow this petition
and direct to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing the
suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and
conditions as may be deemed fit by the trial Court.
It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall regularly
attend the trial until exempted by the orders of the Court.
Violation, if any, may give a cause to take recourse as
3
SLP (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
permissible and the trial Court would be at liberty to do the
needful.
Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing, this Special
Leave Petition stands allowed. Pending applications(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (VIRENDER SINGH)

AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER

Ankur Chaudhary v State of MP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ankur Chaudhary v State of MP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ankur Chaudhary v State of MP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4648/2024

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-01-2024

ANKUR CHAUDHARY Petitioner(s)

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)

(IA No. 78978/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

Date : 28-05-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

Signature Not Verified

years in connection with FIR No. 305 of 2022 registered at

Police Station­Chandan Nagar, District Indore (M.P.) for the

offence punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 22 and

29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act” for brevity).

Previously, when the petitioner approached this Court,

vide order dated 15.5.2023, his bail petition was not

entertained. However, liberty was granted to approach the trial

Court for bail, after the examination of the panch witnesses.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

panch witnesses viz., PW3 (Sunder Pal) and PW4 (Vinod

case of prosecution. On being applied afresh, the trial Court

rejected his bail application only on the pretext that the

Investigation Officer may also be a panch witness who has yet

to examine. The High Court also rejected the bail application

affirming those findings by the impugned order.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent­

State submits that in the facts of this case, the Investigation

Officer may be treated as panch witness; therefore, the High

Court has rightly rejected the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have

considered the facts and all attending circumstances including

panch witness depose, fresh recourse may be taken.

Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not

supported the case of prosecution. On facts, we are not

inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as a panch

witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within

a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates

against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional

liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section

37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be

In view of the above, we are inclined to allow this petition

and direct to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing the

conditions as may be deemed fit by the trial Court.

It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall regularly

attend the trial until exempted by the orders of the Court.

Violation, if any, may give a cause to take recourse as

permissible and the trial Court would be at liberty to do the

Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing, this Special

Leave Petition stands allowed. Pending applications(s), if any,

shall stand disposed of.

(NIDHI AHUJA) (VIRENDER SINGH)

You might also like

Police StationChandan Nagar, District Indore (M.P.) for the

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent