Chattisgarh High Court
Pawan Pal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 December, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9571 of 2022
Pawan Pal S/o Shri Shiv Dayal Pal Aged About 29 Years R/o
Devnagar, Dehgaon, Police Station Raisen District Raisen (M.P.)
--- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Charma, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Non-applicant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicants Shri Ishan Verma, Advocate
For State Shri G.P. Kurre, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
13/12/2022
1. This is second bail application under Section 439 of CrPC.
2. Earlier first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn in MCRC
No.1044/2022 on 13/07/2022 with liberty to revive after examination of
the material witnesses.
3. The applicant has preferred Second bail application under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. as he has been arrested in connection with Crime
No.178/2021 registered at Police Station Charama, District Kanker
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'NDPS Act').
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on a secrete information
received and Police found 55.400 Kgs. of cannabis/ganja from
possession of applicant and three other co-accused, out of which 16 Kg.
Cannabis was seized from the present applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not
committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. He
further submits that there are three accused persons charged for the
said offence, in the instant case from the present applicant 16 kg of
cannabis (Ganja) was recovered from separate seizure memo the
quantity of cannabis so seized is less than commercial quantity. He
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005
(7) SCC 550 contending that since the separate seizure has been
affected, the applicant cannot be convicted for committing an offence of
commercial quantity, there is no previous criminal antecedents of the
present applicant, two co-accused of similar incident was enlarged on
bail by this court in MCRC No.8912/2022 on 01/11/2022 and MCRC No.
5464/2022 on 28/09/2022 trial is not concluded as yet, he is in jail since
02.12.2021, therefore, he may be released on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and submits that the separate seizure memo was prepared
and from present applicant 16 kg of contraband was seized. However,
looking to the quantity adding from other co-accused recovered the
quantity would fall in the commercial quantity. He further submits that in
the event of bail, local surety may be asked for and he may be
restrained from leaving the State of Chhattisgarh without prior
permission of trial Court because they belong to Raisen (Madhya
Pradesh) for which counsel for the applicant does not object.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the
submission made by counsel for the parties, considering that separate
seizure of 16 kg of cannabis (Ganja) was made from present applicant,
there is no previous criminal antecedent of the present applicant,
detention period and trial may take some time and also in view of
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarsingh
Ramjibhai Barot (Supra), I am inclined to allow this bail application.
9. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed and it is
directed that applicant 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. He shall appear
before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said trial
Court, till disposal of the trial.
10. 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
applicant in the event of applicant involving himself in similar offence in
future. It is also made clear that applicant shall not leave the State of
Chhattisgarh without prior permission of the trial Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
Sachin Singh Rajput
Judge
Kamde
