Jafar Ali vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3654 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Jafar Ali vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 April, 2025

                                                                             NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  CRA No. 1935 of 2024

    Jafar Ali S/o Mushtak Aged About 25 Years R/o Boriyakhurd R.D.A. Colony, P.S.
    Tikrapara, Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G.                    ... Appellant(s)

                                         versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In-Chare Telibandha Raipur, District- Raipur,
    C.G.                                                        ... Respondent

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

Order Sheet

15.04.2025 Shri Badruddin Khan, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Vivek Sharma, PL for the State.

Heard on IA-2 of 2025, application for suspension of sentence

and grant of bail.

Appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the judgment

dated 31.01.2024 passed in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No.106 of

2020 by the Special Judge (NDPS), Raipur CG in the following

manner with default stipulation:

Cra 1935 of 2024

Conviction Sentence Section 21 (C) of the NDPS RI for 10 years with fine Act of Rs.1,00,000/-

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence.

The alleged 69 bottles cough syrup of 100 ml each, having

substance of Codeine Phosphate Triprolidine Hydro Chloride (Syrup

RC-Kuff) have been seized from outside of the house of the

appellant. Mandatory provisions of search and seizure under the

NDPS Act have not been compiled with, and there is discrepancy in

sending the samples for its chemical examination to the FSL. There

is total non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Appellant

is in jail since 31.01.2024, and the appeal will take its own time for its

final adjudication, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail

application, and would submit that considering the nature of

evidence, appellant is not entitled for bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the

parties, nature of offence, allegation and the the evidence available Cra 1935 of 2024

on record against the appellant, further that total 69 bottles cough

syrup, 100 ml each, having substance of Codeine Phosphate

Triprolidine Hydro Chloride have been seized from the appellant, I am

not inclined to allow the bail application.

Accordingly, IA-2 of 2025 is rejected.

List this case after eight weeks for final hearing.

Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

padma