Chattisgarh High Court
Shivam Kumar Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 December, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9896 of 2022
• Shivam Kumar Jaiswal S/o Bhola Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 25 Years
Occupation Student, R/o M.G.Road, Near State Bank Of India, City, Police
Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur District Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur )chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri V.K.Pandey, Advocate
For State : Shri Roshan Dubey, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
15/12/2022
Heard.
1. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.532/2020
registered at Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sarguja (C.G.) for alleged
commission of offences under Section 21 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that from the possession of the present
applicant and co-accused Sudhir Singh, the police recovered 115 pieces of
Rexogesic injections and 148 pieces of Avil injections.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has
not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. He
further goes to show that the case of the prosecution basically rested upon
the statements of two star witnesses who are the independent witnesses of
entire investigation, have not supported the case of the prosecution. He
relies upon the judgment of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1117. It is also
submitted that the co-accused - Sudhir Singh has already been granted bail
by this Court in MCrC No.8468/2022 vide order dated 14/10/2022. Therefore,
on parity, the applicant may be granted bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits
that though the seizure witnesses prima facie appears to be not supported
the case of the prosecution, the conviction can be sustained only on the basis
of statements of other police officials including investigating officer.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the evidence collected, facts and circumstances of the
case, the two star witnesses of the case have not supported the case of the
prosecution, reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh (supra), considering the
detention period of the applicant also and that the co-accused have already
been enlarged on bail by this Court in MCrC No.7247/2022, I am inclined to
grant bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that applicant shall
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- along with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court on the condition that -
a) He shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every
date, unless exempted from appearance.
b) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution
witnesses.
It is made clear that the observations made herein above is only for the
purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court shall decide the
case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made
herein above. It is also made clear that the State is at liberty to move
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 the applicant shall not leave the territory of State of Chhattisgarh without
prior permission of the Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
Deepti
