Balbir Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1006 Chatt

                                                                          NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         MCRC No. 8753 of 2022

  1.

Balbir Singh Thakur S/o Shri Devi Singh Thakur Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Kikirapal P.S. Pushpal Tehsil Pushpal And, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh

2. Ajay Kumar Sethia S/o Shri Balram Sethia Aged About 19 Years R/ o Village Kikirapal P.S. Pushpal Tehsil Pushpal And, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh

3. Sameer Manjhi S/o Shri Upendra Manjhi Aged About 62 Years R/o Qr No 84 Padmagiri, Police Station And Tehsil And District Malkangiri (Odisha) India.

---- Applicants

Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Through Police Station(Chilfi), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

----Non-applicant

___________________________________________________________

For Applicants : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Deepti Shukla, P.L.

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sachin Singh Rajput

Order On Board

16.02.2023

1. The applicants have preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 262/2022, 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 that at National Highway - 30 present applicants were traveling in a Forge Toofan Car bearing registration number CG-18 L-9075 and they were carrying 68 kg. of cannabis (Ganja) thereafter said offence has been registered against the present applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that no seizure was effected from the possession of the applicants. They are in jail since 29/04/2022 and trial is likely to take some time. He further submits that there is no previous criminal antecedent registered against present applicants. 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, on parity, 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 applicants are resident of (Odisha) therefore in order to ensure their presence before the learned Special/trial Court local surety may be sought for in case bail being granted for which counsel for the applicant 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 applicants they are in jail since 29.04.2022, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants.

7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each along with one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the condition that -

a) they shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

b) they shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

8. It is made clear that if the applicants are found involved in offence of similar nature, the State is at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail. It is also made clear that the applicants shall not leave the State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of the trial Court.

9. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge vaishali