Sanjay Gurjar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6264 Chatt

                                           1

                                                                               NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            MCRC No. 6128 of 2022
   1) Sanjay Gurjar S/o Shri Uday Ram Gurjar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village
      Motibugad Kheda, P.S. Gagnar District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)

   2) Narayan Lal S/o Lehrulal Aged About 24 Years R/o Rampuriya, P.S. Karwai
      District - Bhilwara (Rajasthan)

                                                                       ---- Applicants

                                      Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station, Nagarnar, District - Bastar
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                   ---- Non-Applicant


For the Applicants              :         Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Advocate
For Non-Applicant               :         Mr. Adil Minhaj, G. A.

                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
                               Order On Board
14.10.2022
   1.

Earlier the applicants had filed the first bail application which was dismissed with liberty to file proper application in MCRC No.7592 of 2020 vide order dated 11.12.2020.

2. The applicants have preferred the second bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as they are in jail since 24.08.2020 in connection with Crime No.134/2020 registered at Police Station- Nagarnar District- Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act.

3. The case of prosecution in brief, is that on the basis of a secret information that the present applicants along with another co-accused was traveling in a truck bearing No.RJ-06-GB-1185 and carrying contraband Ganja hidden in the vehicle wrapped around plastic sheet. That the present applicants and other co-accused were intercepted by the Police and during search and seizure 29 packets containing 100 kgs Ganja was seized. The owner of the vehicle was absconded and applicants were charged for the said offence.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not

committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the seizure of 100 kgs contraband (Ganja) was made effective from the owner of the vehicle, the present applicants are only bus driver and conductor of the vehicle and from their possession only the vehicle was seized in which contraband was hidden. 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 from Notice to become a witness under section 160 CrPC (Ex.P-1), Approval to be an independent witness (Ex.P-2), notice under Section 50 to the accused Narayan(Ex.P-3), Notice Under Section 50 to the accused Sanjay Gurjar (Ex.P-4), search of self witness and Force (Ex.P-5), search panchnama of Government vehicle (Ex.P-6), Search Panchnama (Ex.P-7), Recovery Panchnama (Ex.P-8), Drug Identification Panchnama (Ex.P-9), scale weight verification (Ex.P-10),Weight Panchnama (Ex.P-11), Samras Panchnama (Ex.P-12), Seizure memo (Ex.P-13), Sample Seal Panchnama (Ex.P-14), Panchnama to give the reason for the arrest of the accused Sanjay Gurjar (Ex.P-15), Panchnama to give the reason for the arrest of the accused Narayan(Ex.P-16), arrest memo of accused Narayan (Ex.P-17), arrest memo of accused Sanjay Gurjar (Ex.P-18), Spot Map (Ex.P-19), Patwari Panchnama (Ex.P-20), 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 Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1117.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that applicants are resident of Rajasthan and from their possession 100 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 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 Rajasthan for which counsel for the applicants does not object.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. 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 24.08.2020, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come as a bar as prima-facie there is reasonable ground to believe that the applicant is not guilty and he will not commit the crime in same nature. I am inclined to allow this bail application.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge parul