Chattisgarh High Court
Shivshankar Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on : 06.12.2022
Order Delivered on : 24/ 01 /2023
MCRC No. 9068 of 2022
• Shivshankar Mishra S/o S. Kumar Mishra Aged About 22 Years
R/o Village Bojha, Police Station And Tahsil Pratappur, District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Out
Post Revti (Wrongly Mentioned As Reveti), Police Station
Chandoura, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Smt. Shubha Shrivastava, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
C A V Order
24/01/2023
1. The applicant has filed this application under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail as he is in custody
in connection with Crime No. 89/2022 registered at police station Out
Post Revti, Chandoura, district Surajpur (CG) for the offence
punishable under Section 21 (C) of the Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.06.2022, after
receiving secret information by the police of outpost Revti, Village
Sonadih, the police intercepted and seizure of 35 strips of Rexogesic
Injection (total 199 pieces of Avil Injections) from the applicant was
made.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and
has not committed any offence. He submits that the contraband was not
seized from the conscious possession of the present applicant. He further
submits that the seizure witness who happens to be the witness of the entire
prosecution case has turned hostile and has not supported the case of
prosecution therefore the prosecution has failed to discharge the initial
burden of proving the factum of conscious possession of the contraband
from the present applicant. He placed his reliance in the matter of the Apex
Court in the matter of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 111. Lastly, he
submits that the applicant is in jail since 02.06.2022; the charge sheet has
been filed and trial is likely to take some time therefore, the applicant may be
granted bail.
4. On the other hand, State counsel opposes the prayer and submits
that the contraband was seized from the possession of the present applicant
and even if the seizure witness has not supported the prosecution case, it
can be proved by another witness including the Investigating Officer and
therefore the the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the rival submission and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of allegation and also the
fact that prima facie the seizure witness have not supported the prosecution
case, and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Sanjeet Kumar Singh (supra) at this stage, without commenting or merits,
I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
7. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court on the condition that
(a) he shall appear before the trial court regularly on each and every date,
unless exempted from appearance.
(b) he shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
If the applicant is found involved in similar offence in future, the State
would be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
suguna
