Bharat Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6348 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                           NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             MCRC No. 7651 of 2022
    Bharat Gupta S/o Harendra Gupta Aged About 22 Years R/o Power House
     Camp 1, Row No. 18 Bhilai, Police Station Chhavani, Tehsil And District -
     Durg, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---- Applicant

                                     Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mandir
     Hasaud, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                               ---- Non-Applicant


For the Applicant                :    Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivstava, Advocate
For Non-Applicant                :    Mr. Sushil Sahu, P. L.

                    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
                                 Order On Board
18.10.2022
   1.

The applicant has preferred the first bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as he is in jail since 24.06.2021 in connection with Crime No.223/2021 registered at Police Station- Mandir hasaud District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) of the NDPS Act.

2. The case of prosecution in brief, is that on 23.06.2021 the police received secret information from their informer that from Odisha two cars Bolero bearing No. C.G. 04/J.D. 8048 and Ertica Car No. O.D./17/Q/3256 are coming with heavy load of contraband substance Cannabis with intention to sell the same at Raipur. This information was communicated by them to their higher officer, DSP, mana and sought permission to trap these cars so that due search under the NDPS Act could be carried out, which was received y them verbally,though written permission was sought. Accordingly these cars were searched at NH 53 near FCI gate at Mandi hasaud, after stopping them. It was found that Bolero pick-up no. C.G. 04/JD 8048 was been driven by the applicant from whom 55 k.g. Ganja was seized whereas in another Ertica Car No. O.D/17/Q/3256. Which was driven by fellow accused Trilochan Bagh 45 k.g. Ganja has been recovered. After this recovery, this substance was measured by an independent witness and owner of weighing machine who confirm the quantity of this contraband ganja. FIR has been registered on 24.06.2021

and the applicant Trilochan Bagh, Santosh Pal, Laxmipati Sahu, Sadanand Bhoi, Laxmikant Mohre, Lurapraj were arrested u/S 20 (B) of NDPS Act 1985 for an alleged act of having in possession and transportation of 100 k.g. contraband Ganja to sell the same at the Raipur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the police has seized 55 k.g. Contraband (Ganja) from Bolero bearing No. C.G. 04/J.D. 8048 in which the seizure made effective from Santosh pal and the present applicant was passenger on the vehicle. He further submits that in the same crime No. 45 k.g. Ganja was seized from Ertica Car No. O.D./17/Q/ 3256 in which five other co-accused namely Trilochan Bagh, Laxmipati Sahu, Sadanand Bhoi, Laxmikant Mohre, Lurapraj were traveling. He submits that the entire prosecution story - upon display to two seizure witnesses namely Suraj Manikpuri and Parmanand Yadav. They happened to be witnesses of the entire prosecution story starting from notice under Section 160 CrPC to witness (Ex.P-1), Mukhbir Information Panchnama (Ex.P-2), Consent Panchnama (Ex.P-3), Self Search Panchnama (Ex.P-4), Force and search of Panchan Panchnama (Ex.P-

5), Search Panchnama of Accused (Ex.P-6), recovery panchnama of narcotics recovered from the accused Santosh Pal (Ex.P-7), recovery of vehicle bearing No.OD 17/Q/3256 from accused Trilochan Bagh (Ex.P-

8), identification Panchnama (Ex.P-9), Samras Panchnama (Ex.P-10), physical verification of scale weight (Ex.P-11), Weight Scale Panchnama (Ex.P-12), Sample Seal Panchnama (Ex.P-13), Sample Panchnama (Ex.P-14), memorandum statement to accused Santosh Pal (Ex.P-15), memorandum statement to accused Santosh Pal (Ex.P-16),seizure memo of seized property from Accused Santosh Pal (Ex.P-17) seizure memo of seized property from Accused Trilochan Bagh (Ex.P-18), arrest memo of accused Santosh Pal (Ex.P-19), arrest memo of accused Bharat Gupta (Ex.P-20), arrest memo of accused Trilochan Bagh (Ex.P-

21), arrest memo of accused Lakshyapati Sahu (Ex.P-22), arrest memo of accused Laxmikant (Ex.P-23), arrest memo of accused Sadnand Bohi (Ex.P-24), arrest memo of accused Sadnand Bohi (Ex.P-25), notice under Section 91 CrPC of accused Santosh Pal (Ex.P-26), notice under Section 91 CrPC of accused Trilochan Bagh (Ex.P-27), Since they have not supported the case of the prosecution, the possibility of conviction of the present applicant is removed and he also submit that co-accused traveling in the Ertica Car have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.02.2022 in MCRC No. 10185 of 2021 and MCRC

No. 2394 of 2022 on 28.06.2022. The case of the present applicant is that there is no seizure from the possession of the applicant . In view of the above there are all possibilities and reason to believe that the applicant is not guilty. Since there is no criminal antecedent it can be safely assumed that applicant would not commit any crime 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 applicant. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble 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 the conviction of the applicant can be sustained only on the basis of two star witnesses including the investigating officer. However he fairly submits that on perusal of statement of seizure witnesses it is appeared that they have not properly supported the case of the prosecution and he also does not dispute when except the present applicant all the co-accused have been enlarged on bail by this Court with different applications. He further submits that the case of the present applicant is not different from the case of the other applicant who are enlarged on bail by this Court with different applications.

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

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 star witnesses who are the witnesses of entire investigation carried out by the prosecution and they have not supported the case of prosecution, and looking to the fact that other co-accused namely Luparaj and Trilochan Bagh have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.02.2022 in MCRC No. 10185 of 2021 and MCRC No. 2394 of 2022 on 28.06.2022 respectively and also in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh (Supra), applicant is in jail since 24.06.2021, 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.

7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed. It is directed that he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent 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 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.

9. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge vaishali