Chattisgarh High Court
Chetan Svarnkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 October, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8246 of 2022
Sawarmal Lohar S/o Shri Madhav Lal Lohar Aged About 19 Years
Caste Lohar, R/o Village Suras Post Thalla, P.S. And Tahsil Raipur,
District Bhilwada Rajasthan (Detail Of Applicant Has Not Mentioned
In Annexure A-1),
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Nagarnar, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh
---- Non-applicant
Along with
MCRC No. 8824 of 2022
Chetan Svarnkar S/o Devilal Ji Svarnkar Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village Potala, P.O. Sahada, District - Bhilwada Rajasthan
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Nagarnar, District - Bastar (Jagdalpur) (C.G.).
---- Non-applicant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicants Shri Vinod Tekam, Advocate
For State Shri Amit Verma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
31/10/2022
1. Since both applications are arising out of the same crime number,
therefore, they are being disposed of by common order.
2. The applicant (Sawarmal Lohar) has preferred first bail application
while applicant (Chetan Swarnkar) has preferred Second bail
application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as they have been arrested
in connection with Crime No.31/2022 registered at Police Station
Nagarnar, District Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Section 20 (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985, (for short 'NDPS Act').
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on a secrete information
received and Police found 60 Kgs. Of contraband from possession of
vehicle of accused persons at village Dhanpnji, Forest Naka N.K. 63
Main Road.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that applicants have not
committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the case.
He further submits that there is no previous criminal antecedents
registered against the present applicants, they are in jail since
15/02/2022, trial may take some time, therefore, they may be
released on bail. He further submits that the seizure of 60 kgs
contraband (Ganja) was made effective from the owner of the
vehicle, the present applicants are only Operator of bore machine
and another is assistant of Operator of the bore machine and from
their possession vehicle and contraband was seized. 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 notice
for suspicion under Section 50 (Ex.P-1 & 2), search of self witness
and force (Ex.P-5), Search panchnama of govt. vehicle (Ex.P-6),
Search Panchnama (Ex.P-7), Seized Panchnama (Ex.P-8), Narcotic
Drug identification panchnama (Ex.P-9), scale weight verification
(Ex.P-10), weight panchnama (Ex.P-11), samrus panchnama (Ex.P-
12), seizure memo (Ex.P-13), Sample Seal Panchnama (Ex.P-14),
notice for the reason of arrest of the accused (Ex.P-15 & 16), Arrest
memo (Ex.P-17 & 18), Patwari Panchnama (Ex.P-19), Memorandum
statement of the accused (Ex.P-20), Notice to become a witness
under section 160 CrPC (Ex.P-21), consent of independent witness
(Ex.P-22), crime statement form prepared by the police (Ex.P-23),
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 60 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 15/02/2022, Section 37 of the NDPS Act
would not come as a bar as prima-facie there is reasonable ground to
believe that the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act appears to have
been satisfied. 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/-
Sachin Singh Rajput
Judge
Kamde
