Bhanupratap Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1079 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                           NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                          MCRC No. 9642 of 2022
   1) Bhanupratap Sahu S/o Chandrakant Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Ashok
      Nagar, Behind Rama Green City, P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur,
      Chhattisgarh

   2) Laxminarayan Das Manikpuri S/o Itwari Das Manikpuri Aged About 37 Years
      R/o Tikrapara, Behind Old High Court, P.S. City Kotwali, District- Bilaspur,
      Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ---- Applicants

                                     Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
     Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                              ---- Non-Applicant

For the Applicants               :     Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate
For Non-Applicant                :     Mr. Roshan Dubey, P. L.

                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
                               Order On Board
20.02.2023
   1.

The applicants have preferred the second bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as they are in jail since 17.07.2022 in connection with Crime No.139/2022 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 21, 22 of the NDPS Act. Their first bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer after the charge- sheet is filed in MCRC No.6832 of 2022 & in MCRC No.6835 of 2022 vide orders dated 12.08.2022 respectively.

2. The case of prosecution in brief, is that on the basis of a secret information Police has seized 8 strips of Alprazolam total 4800 tablets and 25 pieces of Kofurex syrup (Weighing total 3.5 kg) from the possession of applicant No.1 and 8 strips of Alprazolam total 3600 tablets and 25 pieces of Kofurex syrup (Weighing total 2.5 kg) from the possession of applicant No.2. Therefore, FIR has been registered against the present applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the entire case is rested upon the seizure & search witnesses who have been examined and not supported the case of

prosecution, therefore, the initial burden to prove the possession of the contraband has not been discharged. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1117. There is no antecedents of the applicants, they are in jail since 17.07.2022, and trial will take some time, therefore, they may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that even the seizure witnesses turned hostile but case of prosecution can be proved from the statement of other witnesses. However, he fairly submits that there is no antecedents registered against the applicants.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the seizure witnesses turned hostile, detention period, no antecedents against the applicants, trial may take some time and the case law cited by counsel for applicants, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicants is allowed and it is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one solvent 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.

8. 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.

        9. Certified copy as per rules.                      Sd/-
                                                                    Sd/-

                                                       (Sachin Singh Rajput)
                                                                    Judge
parul