Chattisgarh High Court
Mohammad Sajid Tigala vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 September, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1577 of 2021
• Bhim @ Suraj Soni S/o Dwaru Soni, Aged About 26 Years, R/o In Front of
Chinna Shop, Sanyasi Para, Thana Khamtarai Distict Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Moudhapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
CRA No. 1534 of 2021
• Mohammad Sajid Tigala S/o Yunus Tigala Aged About 23 Years R/o Asraar Gali,
Maudahapara, Police Station Maudahapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Maudahapara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
CRA No. 1665 of 2021
• Ajay Kumar Chouhan S/o Ram Nagina Chouhan Aged About 40 Years R/o
Titurdih, Nayapara, P.S. Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
14.09.2022 Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Mr. Ramsajivan and Mr. H.A.P.S.
Bhatia, counsel for the respective Appellants.
Mr. Raghvendra Verma, G.A. for the State.
In CRA No. 1577 of 2021
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2021 passed by
learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 06/2020 whereby the
learned Judge convicted the appellant as under:
Conviction Sentence
U/s 21(C) of NDPS Act R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- with default stipulation.
U/s 22(B) of NDPS Act R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/-
with default stipulation.
Mr. Vikas Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that in this case the statements of the
independent panch witnesses depict a different picture than
the one portrayed by the official witness PW-1. Furthermore,
learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there are major
contradictions and omissions in the statement of Investigating
Officer (PW-9). In the case of Avinash Singh Rajput Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 222 of 2014 (judgment
delivered on 30.09.2019) it was held that the strict compliance
of Section 55 of the Act, 1985 is mandatory but in the present
case, Section 55 of the Act, 1985 was not complied. The trial
Court has convicted the appellant without there being any
legally admissible evidence against him. The appellant is in jail
since 05.12.2019 and the final hearing of this appeal will take
more time, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail by
suspending his jail sentence.
On the other hand, State counsel opposes the bail
application submitting that the appellant is sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act,
and the appellant has not even completed 3 years of his jail
sentence.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and quality of the evidence available on record, further
considering the sentence imposed upon him by the Court
below, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am
inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail is allowed.
It is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed
upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the
pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one
local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court
for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18th
October 2022. He shall thereafter appear before the
concerned trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry of
this Court and thereafter, shall continue to appear all
subsequent dates given to him by the trial Court till disposal of
this appeal.
In CRA 1665 of 2021
Heard on I.A. No. 02/2022, application for condonation of
non-appearance of the appellant before the Registry on
29.04.2022.
Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, counsel for the appellant would
submit that the appellant could not appear before the Registry
on the given date as he is languishing in jail in another crime
and also he could not furnish the bail/bond as per order dated
14.01.2022 of this Court.
Upon due consideration, I.A. No. 02/2022 is allowed.
Non-appearance of the appellant on the given date
before the Registry is condoned.
As the appellant is languishing in jail in another crime, he
need not be given further date for his appearance. However, in
the event of appellant's furnishing bail bond in the present
crime number, he shall appear before the Registry of this
Court immediately one month after furnishing of bail bonds
and, thereafter, shall appear before the trial Court on a date to
be given by the Registry and shall continue to appear there on
all such dates as are given to him by the trial court till disposal
of this appeal.
Post all the cases for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
V/-
