Chattisgarh High Court
Girish Diggal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9261 of 2022
• Girish Diggal S/o Abani Diggal Aged About 26 Years R/o Barikiya, P.S.
Baliguda, District Kandhmaal (Odisha) ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Baramkela, District Raigarh
(Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent
with
MCRC No. 10083 of 2022
• Vinod Pujari Son Of Gajendra Pujari Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village
Kilugaon, Police Station Baliguda, District Kandhmal (Odissa) ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station
Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the applicant/MCRC No. 9261 of 2022.
Mr. Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the applicant/MCRC No. 10083/2022.
Mr. Smriti Shrivastava, PL for the State/respondent.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
11/01/2023
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 frst 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. 37/2022 registered in Police Station Baramkela,
District Raigarh, CG for ofence punishable under Section 20(B) of NDPS
Act.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.02.2022 the Police
authority has received secret information that one person in a vehicle
bearing registration No. OD 07 V 3564 was carrying contraband for the
sale purpose and coming from Orissa side towards Karanpali road. On
receiving secret information the police authority seized 35 kg of
contraband from the possession of the present applicant and other
accused.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have
been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the quantity of ganja so
seized, if divided will be less than commercial quantity. He submits that
as per samras panchanama, pure weight of ganja is 35 kgs. The
applicants are in jail since 05.02.2022, as per learned State counsel, there
are no criminal antecedents of the applicants and trial is likely to take
sometime. Therefore, the applicants may be granted bail. Learned
counsel relies upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 7 SCC
550 and Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1117.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes bail application
and submits that the applicants are the residents of State of Odisha and if
the Court is inclined to grant bail, then local surety may be asked for, for
which, counsel for the applicants has no objection.
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
quantity of ganja seized, no criminal antecedents, detention period, trial is
likely to take some time and judgments relied by counsel for the
applicants in the case of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot (supra) and
Sanjeet Kumar Singh (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
