Chattisgarh High Court
Parmesh Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 435 of 2020
1. Parmesh Nayak, S/o Shankar Nayak, aged about 27 years, R/o Malkangiri,
D.N.K. Colony, Police Station Malkangiri, District Malkangiri, Odisha.
2. Mahesh Nag, S/o Vijay Kumar Nag, aged about 32 years, R/o Kindwada,
Police Station Pushapal, District Sukma Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Farasgaon, District Kondagaon
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
25/07/2022 Mr. Rajesh Jain, Counsel for the Appellants.
Mr. Lalit Jangde, G.A.for the Respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Also heard on IA No. 02/2022 for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to Appellant No.2 Mahesh Nag.
This is a repeat interlocutory application for grant of regular
bail, the first interlocutory application for grant of regular bail was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.11.2021 of this Court.
By the impugned judgment dated 15/01/2020, passed by the
learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, 1985, Kondagaon District
Kondagaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case(NDPS Act 1985) No.
02/2018, the Appellants stand convicted under Section 20(B)(ii-C) of
the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of
Rs. 1,00,000/-, with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that without there
being any clinching evidence available on record, the Trial Court has
convicted Appellant No.2. He further submits that seizure witnesses
Manoj Kumar Netam (PW-1) and Samluram Karanga (PW-2) have
not supported the case of the prosecution as well as Ramesh Sahu
(PW-7) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and they
all are turned hostile. The Counsel further submits that provisions of
Section 42 of the NDPS Act have also not duly complied with.
Referring the entries of Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-27C), it is argued
by the Counsel that according to the entries, the information
received from an informant on 11.08.2017 at around 5:30 and
Mukhbir Soochna Panchnama (Ex.P-1) was prepared on 12.08.2017
at around 6:25 AM. In this regard, Ajay Jha (PW-9) Investigating
Officer, has not given any proper explanation. The Trial Court on this
point has given its finding only on the basis of presumption which is
not admissible. The Counsel further submits that the Appellant No.2
is in jail since 12.08.2017, he is already completed about 4 years 11
months in jail and the appeal is likely to take some more time to be
finalized. Therefore, it is prayed that the Appellant No. 2 may be
released on bail.
On the other hand State Counsel opposes the bail application
and submits that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is just and
proper and requires no interference. Hence, it is prayed that the
application for bail filed by Appellant No.2 may be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the entire material available on record with due care.
Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution further
considering the entries of Rojnamcha Sanha, Mukhbir Soochana
Panchnama, finding of the Trial Court in its judgment, seizure
witnesses who were turned hostile and detention period of Appellant
No.2, I am of the considered opinion that it will be proper to release
Appellant No.2 on bail. Consequently, without further commenting on
other merits of the case, I am inclined to release Appellant No.2
Mahesh Nag on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application of Appellant No.2 is allowed.
It is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed upon
Appellant No.2 shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
Appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties each of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 17.10.2022. He shall thereafter
appear before the Trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry
of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all such
subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court, till disposal
of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Shubham
