Chattisgarh High Court
Shivaji Gond vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 556 of 2023
1.
Shivaji Gond S/o Mangalu Gond, Aged About 21 Years Caste Gond, Resident
Of Hirrnayapara, Tahsil Raigarh, P.S. Kundai, District Navrangpur, (Orissa)
2. Vikeshwar Yadav, S/o Lalghar Yadav, Aged About 22 Years Caste Rawat,
Resident Of Ghutkel, P.S. Borai, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gurur
(Chowki Purur), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
---- Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Roshan Dubey, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
09/02/2023
The applicants have preferred second bail application under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. with Crime No. 383/2022 registered at Police Station - Gurur, District -
Balod (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under Section 20 (B) of NDPS Act,
1985.The first bail application in MCRC No. 8891 of 2022 vide order dated 8891 of
2022, which is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive after examination of
seizure witnesses.
2. Case of the prosecution is that police officer has received information by the
informant during checking that on the date of incident, 56.500 kg of contraband
(Ganja) from the possession of the applicants therefore police has registered offence
punishable under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act against the applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have been
falsely implicated. The applicant is in jail since 19.08.2022, charge-sheet has been
filed. It is submitted that the seizure witnesses have not supported the case of
prosecution. He placed reliance on judgment of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna
Kumar Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1117.
Therefore, on parity, the applicants may be granted bail. The applicants are in jail
since 19/08/2022, charge sheet has been filed, there is no criminal antecedent of the
applicants and trial is likely to take sometime, the applicants may be granted bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes bail application. However
submits in the event of bail local surety be asked for. The counsel for applicant
agreed for it.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival
submissions.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the fact that
prime facie seizure witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, charge
sheet has been filed, no criminal antecedents, detention period and that trial is likely
to take some time, without commenting on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the
applicant.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicants shall
be released on bail on 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 the observations made herein above is only for the
purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court will decide the case on its
own merits without being influenced by any observation made herein above. It is
also made clear that the victim/complainant or State is at liberty to move an
application regarding cancellation of bail of the applicant in the event of applicants
involving themselves in similar offence in future or violates any of the above
conditions.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
( Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
vaishali
