Chattisgarh High Court
Ameen Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 February, 2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 5851 of 2022
Ameen Khan S/o Ismil Khan Aged About 24 Years R/o Aurangabad Jatav
Mohalla, Police Station Sadar, District : Mathura, Uttar Pradesh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chilfi,
District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
----Non-applicant
___________________________________________________________
For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advo.
For Non-applicant : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, P.L.
Hon'ble Justice Shri Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
16.02.2023
1.
The applicant has preferred this first bail application under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C., as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
14/2021, registered at Police Station - Chifli, District - Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Section 20 (B) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Act.
2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on the basis of a secret information police
has stopped the motorcycle bearing registration number UP-80, D.B. 6303 and
during the search police has recovered 49.690 Kg of cannabis (Ganja) thereafter
said offence has been registered against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no seizure was effected from the
possession of the applicant. He is in jail since 27/04/2021 and trial is likely to take
some time. He further submits that there is no previous criminal antecedent
registered against present applicant. He further submits that the case of the
prosecution basically rests upon two star witnesses who happens to be the
witnesses of entire investigation carried out by the prosecution and they have not
supported the case of the 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 State counsel opposes prayer and submits that
looking to the quantity of contraband seized, the bail application may be rejected.
He further submits that in the event of bail being is granted, applicant is resident
of (Mathura) U.P., therefore in order to ensure his presence before the learned
Special/trial Court local surety may be sought for in which counsel for the
applicant is readily agreed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions.
6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, 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), considering the
detention period of the applicant he is in jail since 27.04.2021, I am inclined to
grant bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that applicant shall be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-
along with one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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.
8. It is made clear that the observations made herein above 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 herein above.
9. It is also made clear that the complainant or State is at liberty to move an
application regarding cancellation of bail of the applicant in the event of applicant
violates the above conditions.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
vaishali
