Chattisgarh High Court
Siddhanta Digal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 February, 2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 267 of 2023
1.
Siddhanta Digal S/o Sadhucharan Digal Aged About 22 Years R/o
Village Muslipanga, Police Station Gichhapada, District Kandhmal
(Odisha)
2. Rajeev Digal S/o Trinath Digal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village
Salaguda, Police Station Baliguda, District Kandhmal (Odisha)
3. Rambhir Sahani S/o Trinath Pardeshi Sahani Aged About 20 Years
R/o Village Balandapada, Police Station Guchhapada, District
Kandhmal (Odhisha)
---- Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Chilfi, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
----Non-applicant
___________________________________________________________
For Applicants : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advo.
For Non-applicant : Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Justice Shri Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
02.02.2023
1. The applicants have preferred this first bail application under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C., as they havebeen arrested in connection
with Crime No. 08/2022, registered at Police Station - Chifli, District
- Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)
(ii) (C) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act
2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on the basis of a secret
information that the present applicants was traveling is a Car
Honda Civic without number was stopped in Raipur-Jabalpur
Highway N.H. 30.They were carrying contraband Ganja hidden in
the vehicle. That the present applicants were intercepted by the
police and during search and seizure 19 packets containing 32.410
kgs Ganja was seized thereafter said offence has been registered
against the present applicans.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that no seizure was
effected from the possession of the applicants. They are in jail since
04/03/2022 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.
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 04.03.2022, 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 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
