Anand Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6810 Chatt

                                            1

                                                                                 NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        MCRC No. 3620 of 2022
    Anand Kumar S/o Mahendra Kumar Aged About 19 Years Village
     Saidabad Amora, Police Station Handiya District Allahabad Uttar
     Pradesh District- Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh

                                                                        ---- Applicant

                                       Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Jagdalpur, District-
     Bastar, Chhattisgarh

                                                              ---- Non-Applicant

For the Applicant                :         Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Advocate
For Non-Applicant                :         Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.

              Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
                          Order On Board
15.11.2022
   1.

The applicant has preferred the second bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as he is in jail since 11.01.2021 in connection with Crime No.14/2021 registered at Police Station- Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) for the ofence punishable under Section 20 (B) of the NDPS Act. Earlier his frst bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive after examination of the witnesses of search and seizure in MCRC No.3210 of 2021 vide order dated 29.06.2021.

2. The case of prosecution in brief, is that on the basis of an information received from an informant Police has seized 21.650 kg Ganja from possession of present applicant and another co- accused. Thereafter, Police has registered an FIR against the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any ofence and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further goes to show that the case of prosecution basically rested upon the statements of two independent witnesses who are the independent witnesses of entire investigation carried out by the prosecution starting from Najri Naksha (Ex.P-1), Written report (Ex.P-2), Spot Map (Ex.P-3), Consent for making witness (Ex.P-4), Informant Notice Attestation Panchnama (Ex.P-5), Notice under Section 50 (Ex.P-6), Self witness

Force and Vehicle Search Panchnama (Ex.P-7), Search Panchnama (Ex.P-8), Recovery Panchnama (Ex.P-9), Narcotics Drug Identifcation Panchnama (Ex.P-10), Scale Verifcation Panchnama (Ex.P-11), Weight Panchnama (Ex.P-12), Samras Panchnama (Ex.P-13), Sample Seal Panchnama (Ex.P-14), Panchnama to reason for arrest of accused (Ex.P-15), Information regarding arrest of accused to his family members (Ex.P-16) & (Ex.P-17), Seizure Memo (Ex.P-18), Arrest Memo (Ex.P-19) & (Ex.P-

20), they have not supported the case of prosecution. He submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty and since there is no previous criminal antecedents, this can be safely assumed that the applicant would not commit crime in future while on bail. He submits that the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act has been satisfed and therefore there is no bar to this Court in granting bail to the applicant as he is in jail since 11.01.2021. 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 Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1117.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that though the seizure witnesses prima- facie appears to be not supported the case of prosecution, the conviction can be sustained on the basis of statements of other Police Ofcials including Investigating Ofcer. 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 he belongs to State Uttar Pradesh for which counsel for the applicant does not object.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

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 independent witnesses who are the witnesses of entire investigation carried out by the prosecution and they have not supported the case of prosecution, considering that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the present applicant, detention period, charge-sheet has been fled and trial may take some time

and also placing reliance on the Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh (Supra), I am inclined to allow this bail application.

7. Accordingly, the bail application fled 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.50,000/- 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.

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 infuenced 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 ofence in future. It is also made clear that applicant shall not leave the State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of the trial Court.

        9. Certifed copy as per rules.                     Sd/-
                                                                   Sd/-

                                                      (Sachin Singh Rajput)
parul                                                             Judge