Chattisgarh High Court
Ankit Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 185 of 2023
• Kewal Dewangan S/o Shatrughan Dewangan Aged About 22 Years R/o Sikola
Bhatha, Premnagar, House No. 228, Ward No. 14 Durg, Tahsil And District
Durg Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Mohannagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
with
MCRC No. 295 of 2023
• Ankit Yadav S/o Mangal Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Choudhari Milk
Dairy, Ashanagar Durg, P.S. Mohannagar, District Durg (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station
Mohannagar, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent
Mr. Vikash Pradhan and Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, counsel for the
respective applicants.
Mr. Vinod Tekam, PL for the State/respondent.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
07/02/2023
Since, both the cases are arising out of same crime number,
therefore, they are being decided by this common order.
2. The applicants have preferred this Second bail application under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as they are in custody in
connection with crime No. 193/2022 registered in Police Station
Mohannagar, District Durg, CG for ofence punishable under Sections 8/22
and 27(A) of NDPS Act. The frst bail application was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to revive after examination of seizure witnesses
vide order dated 28.09.2022 passed in MCRC No. 5873 of 2022.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicants were found in
possession of 25 bottles of Kop Free Cough Syrup of which they had no
valid authority.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have
not committed any ofence and have been falsely implicated in this case.
They further submits that the seizure witnesses have not supported the
case of the prosecution and have declared hostile and there is no
antecedent of the applicants, they are in jail since 01.06.2022, trial is not
concluded as yet, charge-sheet has already been fled, therefore, they
may be released on bail. They further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna
Kumar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 SCC Online
SC 1117 and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rhea
Chakraborty Vs. Union of India reported in 2020 SCC Online Bom
990.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes bail application
and submits that looking to the allegations against the present applicants
and quantity so seized, therefore, their bail application may be rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival
submissions.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the
detention period, trial is likely to take some time; Charge-sheet has
already been fled and seizure witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution and judgments relied by counsel for the applicants in the
case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh (supra) and Rhea Chakraborty (supra)
without commenting on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the
applicants.
8. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. It is directed that the
applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.
c) They shall not leave the territory of Chhattisgarh without permission
of the trial Court.
It is made clear that the State is at liberty to move application
regarding cancellation of bail of the applicants in the event applicants
involve themselves in similar ofence in future.
Certifed copy as per rules.
Sd/-
( Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
Pawan
