Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj Dandekar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 April, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2114 of 2024
1 - Manoj Dandekar S/o Mewa Lal Dandekar Aged About 23 Years R/o
Ward No. 11, Banglapara Tumgaon, Police Station Tumgaon, District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
CRA No. 2053 of 2024
1 - Praveen Sao @ Fode S/o Shri Chandan Ram Sao Aged About 31 Years
R/o Ward No. 28, Mauharibhantha Mahasamund, Thana- Mahasamund,
District- Mahsamund, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Mahasamund,
District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
Order Sheet
23/04/2025 Mr. Sunil Sahu and Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned
counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government
Advocate appearing for the State/ respondent .
Heard on the applications for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail (IA No. 1 of 2024) to the respective
appellants.
The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by
judgment dated 08.11.2024, passed by the learned Special
Judge (N.D.P.S.), Mahasamund, District Mahasamund
(C.G.) in NDPS Act Case No. H-08/2024 by which the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
No. Conviction Under Sentence
Section
1. 21(B) of N.D.P.S. Act R.I. for 05 years and
fine of 30000/- each in
default of payment of
fine amount, further R.I.
for 1year each
Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant- Praveen Sao @ Fode (in CRA No. 2053 of
2024) would submit that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the crime in question the independent
witnesses- PW01 and PW02 have not been supported the
prosecution case. The Investigating Officer (PW08) is also
the same person who is the lodger of the FIR therefore,
there is material defect in the investigation of the case. A
joint notice has been given to both the accused persons
under Section 50 of the NDPS Act in which the place of
search, place of police station has been mentioned as "the
Police Station, Mahasamund" whereas the place of search
is other than the Police Station. In the document Ex. P/ 3
there is overwriting in timing of preparation of the
documents. He would also submit that Investigating Officer
(PW08) has admitted in paragraph 87 and 88 of his
evidence that there is correction in preparation of the
document further the seized articles kept in Malkhana but
there is no endorsement in the record of the Malkhana that
at what point of time it was sent for its chemical
examination. He would also submit that the appellant is in
jail since 25.02.2024 and the appeal is of the year 2024 and
final adjudication of the same will take its own time, hence it
is prayed that the appellant- Praveen Sao @ Fode be
enlarged on bail.
Mr. Shikhar Sahrama, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant- Manoj Dandekar (in CRA No. 2114 of
2024) adopts the argument advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the co-accused- Praveen Sao @
Fode and would submit that a joint seizure have been made
by the police and there are non-compliance of mandatory
provisions of NDPS Act, the conviction of the appellant is
bad in law and therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on
bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
State/respondent has opposes the bail application and has
submitted that from the possession of the appellants total
5,736 capsules of Spasmo/Proxyvon Plus have been seized
by the police. The other witnesses have supported the
prosecution case and all the mandatory provisions have
been complied with. She would also submit that the
Investigating Officer has duly explained the discrepancy in
the documentation prepared during search and seizure
proceeding and looking to the quantity of the contraband
seized from the appellants and nature of offence the
appellants are not entitled for grant of bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records of the Court below.
Considering the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation
and the material collected during investigation further
considering the quantity of contraband i.e. 5,736 capsules of
Spasmo/Proxyvon Plus seized from the appellants and the
quality of the evidence produced by the prosecution, I am
not inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the
I. A. No. 1 of 2024 are rejected..
List this matter for final hearing after 10 weeks.
Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
JUDGE
Digitally
signed by
AMITA
DUBEY
Date:
2025.05.03
10:55:27
+0530
amita
