Chattisgarh High Court
Nilesh Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 741 of 2023
• Nilesh Sharma S/o Late Rajendra Sharma Aged About 22 Years R/o Neem
Gali, Udiya Para, Saraipali, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line,
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Madhunish Singh, Ad. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
16/02/2023
This is second bail application. First bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to revive after examination of seizure witnesses. The applicant
has been arrested in connection with Crime No.109/2022 registered at police station
- Civil Lines, District - Raipur (CG) for alleged commission of offences under
Section 20B, 21B, 21C, 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Case of prosecution in brief, is that on the basis of secret information received by
the police through informer, the police has seized 5000 pieces, Alfrazolata 24000
and injectin 2750 pieces from the possession of applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any
offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that other co-
accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3509 of
2022 vide order dated 15.07.2022. He further submits investigation is complete and
charge-sheet has already been filed, that the applicant is in jail since 25/02/2022 and
trial is likely to take some time. The seizure witnesses have been examined and they
have not supported the case of prosecution. He relies upon the judgment of Sanjeet
Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 SCC
Online SC 1117. Therefore, the applicant may be granted bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and
submits that the other witnesses are yet to be examined. Even assuming that
seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, that would not
affect the case of the prosecution.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and
evidence collected, the two star witnesses of the case prima facie have not
supported the case of the prosecution, placing reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh (supra), seizure
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, quantity so seized is
intermediate quantity, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant
bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that she shall be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety
for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on the condition
that -
a) He shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date,
unless exempted from appearance.
b) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
( Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
vaishali
