Chattisgarh High Court
Satyendra Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 December, 2022
Order Reserved on 23.11.2022
Order Pronounced on 06.12.2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 5156 of 2022
Satyendra Yadav S/o Shri Punit Ram Yadav Aged About 29 Years Caste
Raut, Resident Of Nayatola, Sabnima Lalu Kunwar, Police Station Atmal
Gola,, District : Patna, Bihar
Mukesh Rai S/o Kailash Rai Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Nayatola,
Sabnima Lalu Kunwar, Police Station Atmal Gola,, District : Patna, Bihar
Avinash Kumar Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh Aged About 31
Years Caste Rajput, Resident Of Ramnagar Diara, Police Station Atmal
Gola, District : Patna, Bihar
---- Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station
Bhanpuri,, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Non-applicant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Komra, Advocate
For State : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Dy. A. G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
CAV ORDER
1. The applicants have preferred this first bail application under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. as they have been arrested in connection with Crime
No.87/2021 registered at Police Station Bhanpuri, District Bastar
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) (ii) (C) of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short
'NDPS Act').
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the date of incident
Police has seized 51.300 Kg of contraband (Ganja) from the
offending vehicle bearing Registration No.G.J./12 D. S./ 3316 at
village Bhanpuri NH-30 main road and thereafter prepared the
seizure memo and arrested the applicant on 09.10.2021 for the
alleged offence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that applicants have not
committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the case.
He further submits that there is no previous criminal antecedents
registered against the present applicants, they are in jail since
09.10.2021, trial may take some time, therefore, they may be
released on bail. He further submits that the seizure of 51.300 kgs
contraband (Ganja) was made effective from the owner of the
vehicle, there is no contraband was seized from the exclusive
possession of the applicants. He further goes to show that the case
of prosecution basically rested upon the statements of two star
witnesses who are the independent witnesses of entire investigation
carried out by the prosecution starting notice to be a witness under
Section 160 CrPC (Ex.P-1), consent to witness (Ex.P-2), notice given
to accused under Section 100 regarding search (Ex.P-3,4), Search
Panchnama of self-witness force (Ex.P-5) Notice under Section 50
(Ex.P-6,7,8), recovery Panchnama (Ex.P-9), Narcotic Drug
identification panchnama (Ex.P-10), weight scale verification
panchnama (Ex.P-11), drug weight panchnama (Ex.P-12), samras
panchnama (Ex.P-13), Sample Seal Panchnama (Ex.P-14), seizure
memo (Ex.P-15), Arrest Memo (Ex.P-16,17,18), they have not
supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. He submits that
in view of the facts and circumstances of the case there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are not guilty and
they would not commit same crime in future while on bail. He submits
that the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act has been satisfied and
therefore there is no bar to this Court in granting bail to the
applicants. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna
Kumar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and submits that applicants are resident of Patna, Bihar
and from their possession 51.300 kgs of contraband Ganja was
seized and other witnesses are yet to be examined even assuming
that seizure witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution,
the conviction can be sustained on the basis of other witnesses
including Investigating Officer. In view of above bar under Section 37
of NDPS Act would be applicable against the present applicants. He
1 2022 SCC Online SC 1117
submits that in the event of bail, local surety may be asked for and
they may be restrained from leaving the State of Chhattisgarh without
prior permission of trial Court because they belong to State Bihar for
which counsel for the applicants does not object.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the
fact that the case of prosecution basically rested upon the statements
of two star witnesses who are the witnesses of entire investigation
carried out by the prosecution and they have not supported the case
of prosecution, in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh (Supra),
applicants are in jail since 09.10.2021, I am inclined to allow this bail
application.
7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicants is allowed. It is
directed that they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. They shall
appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the
said trial Court, till disposal of the trial.
8. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove is only for
the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court will
decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any
observation made hereinabove. It is also made clear that the State is
at liberty to move an application regarding cancellation of bail of the
applicants in the event of applicants involving themselves in similar
offence in future. It is also made clear that applicants shall not leave
the State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of the trial Court.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
Sachin Singh Rajput
Judge
parul
