Chattisgarh High Court
Chevil Kumar Manghi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 May, 2025
1/4
NAFR
Digitally
SOURABH signed by
PATEL SOURABH
PATEL
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 992 of 2025
1. Chevil Kumar Manghi S/o Basant Kumar Manghi Aged About
23 Years R/o. A/1 P.T.S., Ward No. 17, Rajnandgaon, Distt.
Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
2. Tikesh Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Komalram Bharadwaj Aged About
26 Years R/o. Village Sabalpur, P.S. Doundilohara, Distt. Balod
(C.G)
... Appellants
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station Balod, Distt. Balod (C.G.).
... Respondent
29/05/2025 Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy.A.G. for the State.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, which is an application
for suspension of the sentence and grant of bail.
Appellants have been convicted and sentenced by
the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Balod, District-
Balod vide impugned judgment of conviction and
sentenced dated 30.04.2025 in Special Criminal Case
No. 22/2024 for offence punishable under Section 8 read
with Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) NDPS Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 04 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- with
default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
mandatory provisions under the Act of NDPS has not
been complied with, as after arrest, information has not
been sent to the Superior Officer. He also contended that
seizure of the contraband is not found in conscious
possession of the appellants and the joint seizure has
been made from all the accused persons. He next
contended that the right to examine the defence
witnesses was closed against which revision was
preferred before the High Court which was allowed vide
order dated 30.04.2025, however, on the same date,
impugned judgment in the criminal case was
pronounced and therefore, the appellants were not
benefited with the order passed by the High Court.
Appellants were on bail during trial. The appellant No. 1
has served 92 days and appellant No. 2 has served 75
days of the substantive jail sentence during trial. They
have not misused the liberty granted by the trial court
and there is no criminal antecedents against appellant
No. 1 and the appeal is not likely to be heard finally in
near future, therefore, substantive jail sentence awarded
to the appellants be suspended and they may be released
on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer
made by learned counsel for the Appellants. He do not
dispute the submission of learned counsel for the
appellants that there is no criminal antecedents against
appellant No. 1. However, he submits that there is one
criminal antecedents against appellant No. 2 for alleged
commission of offence under Section 6 of Chhattisgarh
Prevention of Gambling Act, 2022.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the records of the trial Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, submissions of learned counsel for the respective
parties, particularly taking into consideration the period
of jail sentence which the appellants have already been
served and further considering that appeal may take
some time for its final hearing, I am inclined to allow the
application.
Accordingly, the application (IA No.01/2025) is
allowed and it is directed that the execution of
substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellants
shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal
and they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the
like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court,
for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on
11.08.2025. Thereafter, they shall appear before the
concerned trial Court on a date given by the Registry of
this Court and continue to appear there till final disposal
of this appeal.
I.A. No. 02/2025, which is an application for
urgent hearing and I.A. No. 03/2025, which is an
application for hearing the matter in summer vacation are
disposed off.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Sourabh P .
