Mrs. Sufiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5065 Chatt

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5065 Chatt
Judgement Date : 5 August, 2022

Chattisgarh High Court

Mrs. Sufiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2022

                                                             Page 1 of 3



                                                                    NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          MCRC No. 5548 of 2022

    Mrs. Sufiya, W/o Shakir Ali, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Rais
     Nagar, P.S. Thakur Ganj, District-Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

                                                          ---- Applicant

                                 Versus

    State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Police Station Tikrapara,
     District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.            ---- Non-Applicant

For Applicant             : Shri Pravin Kumar Tulsyan and Shri Karan
                            K. Bahrani, Advocates

For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer

             Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
                            Order on Board
05.08.2022

Heard.

1) This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.248 of 2022 for the offence punishable under section 20 (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'NDPS Act') registered at Police Station- Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.).

2) As per prosecution story, on 31.03.2022 the police received secret information and acting upon the said information intercepted the present applicant with co-accused near Bhathagaon bus stand carrying contraband Ganja in separate bags. The police seized 11 Kg of Ganja from the present applicant and 10 Kg of Ganja from the co-accused namely Krishna Thakur.

3) Learned counsel for the applicant made a statement that there are two accused persons, one is present applicant and another one is Krishna Thakur. The co-accused Krishna Thakur has not

moved any application before this Court.

4) Counsel for the applicant submits that the total quantity of contraband seized is 21 Kg but separate seizure was made by the police and from possession of the present applicant 11 Kg contraband Ganja was seized, whereas, from the co-accused Krishna Thakur 10 Kg. contraband Ganja was seized, therefore, quantity seized from both the accused can not be clubbed and it can be taken in account as individual capacity. He relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot V. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4248 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph 8 as under :-

"8. Although, at first blush, the argument of the learned counsel appeared attractive, on careful appreciation of the facts on record we are satisfied that the High Court judgment is fully justified and needs to be upheld. It is true that the High Court proceeded on the footing that there was a criminal conspiracy between the appellant and the deceased, Danabhai Virabhai Rabari. In our view, however, there was no warrant for this conclusion at all as there is no evidence to suggest that there was any such abetment and/or criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellant and Dananbhai Virabhai Rabari were found together, but individual carrying the recovered substances. Hence, it was not possible for the High Court to take the view that Section 29 was attracted."

He further submits that in the FIR Section 29 of NDPS Act has not been added which deals with punishment for abetment and conspiracy. His next contention is that there is no materiel to establish abetment or criminal conspiracy between two accused persons. He places orders of this Court passed in MCRC No. 2877 of 2022, MCRC No. 8315 of 2021, where total quantity of the contraband was more than 20 Kg but the

separate seizure was made from accused persons of lesser quantity than commercial quantity and they were granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

5) Per contra, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that quantity of the contraband seized from both of the accused, in total, is greater than the commercial quantity, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot V. State of Gujarat where separate seizure has been taken into account separately. Further, the co- ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail on same set of facts in MCRC No. 2877 of 2022 & MCRC No. 8315 of 2021 and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed; the applicant is in jail since 31.03.2022, therefore, without commenting anything on merits the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

7) It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, she shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-

(i) she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court;