Fayyaz Ahmad vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1143 Chatt

                                      1


                                                                       NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                              MCRC No. 1125 of 2023

     • Fayyaz Ahmad S/o Mehboob Alam Aged About 25 Years R/o Sai Mandir,
       Kasaridih, Durg, Police Station City Kotwali, Durg District Durg
       Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Applicant

                                   Versus

     • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Outpost Padmanabhpur, Police Station
       Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh

                                                              ---- Respondent

For Applicant : Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Shri Jitendra Pali, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order On Board

23/02/2023

This is second bail application. First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive after examination of seizure witnesses.

1. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.557/2022 registered at Outpost - Padmandabhpur, Police Station - Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under Section 22 & 22-C of NDPS Act.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that from the possession of the present applicant, 1728 tablets of Alprazolam were recovered.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 13/05/2022 and trial is likely to take sometime. He submits that seizure witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. He relies upon decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1117 and prays that at this

stage, the applicant may be granted bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that from the medical shop of the applicant, 173 stripes (1728 tablets) of Alprazolam were seized, of which, he did not produce any valid document. It is submitted that other witnesses are yet to be examined. Even assuming that seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, conviction can be sustained on the basis of other witnesses including the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the application may be rejected.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the fact that the case of the prosecution basically rested upon the statements of two star witnesses and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh (supra), without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with one 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.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Deepti