Chattisgarh High Court
Chhaya Paraste vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 October, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No.6084 of 2022
Chhaya Paraste D/o Ratansingh Paraste Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Gutalwah, Police Station Shahpur, District Dundouri Madhya
Pradesh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Charama, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
---- Respondent.
CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Adv.
For Respondent/State : Mr. G.P. Kurre, PL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
19.10.2022
1. The accused/applicant is in custody since 21.02.2021 in connection
with Crime No.34/2021 registered at Police Station Charama, District -
North Bastar - Kanker, C.G. for the offence punishable under Section
20(B) of the NDPS Act, has filed this application for grant of bail.
2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that the applicant and other co-
accused were found in illicit possession of 82 kg Ganja from their joint
possession, thereafter, a case was registered against the present
applicant and other co-accused for the aforesaid offence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused/applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He
further submits that the seizure of 82 kgs contraband (Ganja) was
made effective from the vehicle in which the present applicant was
traveling and from her 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) information from informant Panchnama (Ex.P-3), Notice under
Section 50 of the NDPS Act to suspect (Ex.P-4) approval for search
panchnama (Ex.P-5), search panchnama of police vehicle (Ex.P-6),
search panchnama of witnesses (Ex.P-7), search panchnama of
suspect/accused (Ex.P-8), search panchnama of vehicle of
accused/suspect (Ex.P-9) Recovery Panchnama (Ex.P-10), self
search of police force panchnama (Ex.P-11), Identification of Drug
Panchnama (Ex.P-12), Memorandum Statement (Ex.P-13), scale
weight verification (Ex.P-14), Samras Panchnama (Ex.P-15), weight
Panchnama (Ex.P-16), Sample Panchnama (EX.P-17), Sample seal
panchnama (Ex.P-18), Sealed Panchnama (Ex.P-19), Seizure memo
(Ex.P-20), Panchnama to give the reason for the arrest of the accused
Chhaya Paraste (Ex.P-21), Arrest Memo (Ex.P-22), Spot Map (Ex.P-
23), Notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act (Ex.P-24), 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 applicant is not guilty and she
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 applicant.
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 from the possession of present applicant
82 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 applicant. He submits that in the event of bail, local
surety may be asked for and she may be restrained from leaving the
State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of trial Court because
she belong to Madhya Pradesh State for which counsel for the
applicant does not object.
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, 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 21.02.2021, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would
not come as a bar as prima-facie there is reasonable ground to believe
that the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act appears to have been
satisfied, I am inclined to allow this bail application.
7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed. It is
directed that she 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. She 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. It is
also made clear that applicant shall not leave the State of Chhattisgarh
without prior permission of the trial Court.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
yasmin
