Suraj Namdeo vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2542 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Suraj Namdeo vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2025

                                                                   CRA No. 285 of 2025




                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                         Order Sheet

                                        CRA No. 285 of 2025

    1 - Suraj Namdeo S/o Mahesh Namdeo Aged About 39 Years R/o Near Village
    Harad Station, Police Station- Bhalumada, District- Anuppur ( M.P.).

    2 - Nitesh Kumar Tiwari @ Neelu S/o Suresh Tiwari Aged About 25 Years R/o
    Village- Badra, Post And Tahsil- Kotma, Police Station- Bhalumada, District-
    Anuppur ( M.P. ).
                                                            ... appellantss(s)

                                              versus

    1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station-
    Chilpi, District- Kabirdham ( C.G. ).                        ---Respondent

20/03/2025 Heard Mr. Vishnu Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.

Neeraj Sharma, learned Dy. A.G., appearing for the State / respondent

on the instant application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail

(I.A. No. 1 of 2025).

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence Date:

2025.03.22 11:20:24

dated 01.02.2025, learned Special Judge (NDPS Act 1985), Kawardha +0530

District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Special Criminal case (NDPS Act) No.

16/2024, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-

Conviction under Sections Sentence

20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act 1985 R.I. for 10-10 years with fine of Rs.

1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- in default of which additional Imprisonment for 1 year (to both the appellants).

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the

contraband has not been seized from the exclusive possession of the

present appellants and have falsely been implicated in the crime in

question. He further submits that the proper compliance of Section 42(2)

and 52(A) N.D.P.S. Act has not been done by the Investigating Officer.

The appellants is in jail since 06.08.2023 and the appeal is likely to take

sometime for final disposal, therefore he may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail

application and submits that 84.530 Kg ganja(cannabis) has been seized

from possession of the present appellants which is more than the

commercial quantity. The appellants had rightly been convicted for the

aforesaid offence, therefore, he is not entitled for relief of bail. Hence, the

application for suspension of sentence for grant of bail is deserves to be

dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records

of the trial Court.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case

particularly the fact that 84.530 Kg ganja was seized from the

possession of the appellants which is much more than the commercial

quantity and after trial and also considering the fact that the proper

compliance of Section 42(2) and 52(A) N.D.P.S. Act has been done by

the Investigating Officer and without commenting on merits of the case,

this Court finds it appropriate to reject the instant application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail, at this stage.

Consequently, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 stands rejected.

Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

Jyoti