Abhimanyu Dadsena vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 941 Chatt

                                        1


                                                                         NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                MCRC No. 979 of 2023

     • Abhimanyu Dadsena S/o Ghutu Dadsena Aged About 25 Years R/o -
       Village Padkital, Police Station Dongripali, District : Sonapur *, Orissa

                                                                   ---- Applicant

                                    Versus

     • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Of Police
       Station - Singhoda, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

                                                                ---- Respondent

& MCRC No. 746 of 2023

• Virendra Kumar Sethi S/o Akura Sethi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Padkital, Police Station Dongarpali, District Sonpur (Odisha)

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

For Applicants : Shri Kishore Narayan, Advocate For State : Shri Adil Minhaj, Govt. Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order On Board

14/02/2023

Heard.

1. The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.45/2022 registered at Police Station - Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under Section 20 (B) of NDPS Act.

2. Prosecution case is that the applicants were found transporting 30

kgs of cannabis on a vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated. They are in jail since 29/05/2022 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. Learned counsel 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. therefore, at this stage, the applicants may be granted bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that from the joint possession of the applicants 30 kgs of ganja was seized. It is submitted that other witnesses are yet to be examined. He further submits that the applicants are residents of State of Odisha and if the Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicants, local surety may be asked for, to which, learned counsel for the applicants have no objection. Therefore, the applications may be rejected.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the fact that seizure witnesses 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), I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants.

6. Accordingly, the applications are allowed. It is directed that the applicant 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.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Deepti