Chattisgarh High Court
Mukesh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 September, 2025
-1-
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 436 of 2025
Nand Kishore Sahu S/o Jodharam Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No.
09 Krishna Nagar Bajrang Chowk Vikki Kirana Store Police Station Supela
District - Durg (C.G.)
--- Appellant (s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Komakhan District -
Mahasamund (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
CRA No. 602 of 2025
Mukesh Sahu S/o Late Ramesh Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 09
Krishna Nagar Bajrang Chowk Bajrang Kiraya Bhandar Police Station Supela
Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.)
--- Appellant (s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Komakhan District -
Mahasamund (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
Sampat Sagar S/o Shri Manharan Sagar, Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward
No. 8, Minimata Chowk Krishna Nagar, Near Nirmal Cycle, P.S. Supela
Bhilai Distt.- Durg (C.G.)
--- Appellant (s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S.-
Komakhan, Dist- Mahasamund (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
02/09/2025 Mr. Sushil Dubey, Mr. Aman Pandey and Mr. Ashutosh
Biswas, counsel for respective appellants.
Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State.
Heard on IA No.2 which is an application for condonation of
86 days delay in filing CRA No.1285 of 2025.
On due consideration of the grounds raised in the
application and submission of learned counsel for the appellant in
CRA No.1285 of 2025, application is allowed. Delay of 86 days in
filing CRA No.1285 of 2025 is hereby condoned.
Heard on IA No.1, applications for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail filed by appellants in all three appeals.
Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel appearing for appellant -
Nand Kishore Sahu in CRA No.436 of 2025 would submit that from
case as setup by prosecution, there is no seizure of contraband
from possession of appellant- Nand Kishore Sahu. Even the
contraband has not been seized from the vehicle on which
appellant is said to have been travelling i.e. Innova Car. As per
case of prosecution, contraband is seized from Swift Desire Car on
which co-accused Mukesh Sahu and Sampat Sagar were traveling
and, therefore, no case would be made out against appellant-
Nand Kishore Sahu. Learned trial Court without appreciating
evidence of PW8 and PW15 in appropriate manner has passed
impugned judgment of conviction of appellant Nand Kishore Sahu.
He submits that appeal may take some time for its hearing,
therefore, substantive jail sentence imposed upon appellant- Nand
Kishore Sahu be suspended and he may be released on bail.
Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel appearing for appellant-
Mukesh Sahu in CRA No.602 of 2025 would submit that police
during investigation has not complied with Rule 10 (3) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage,
Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (for short " Rules of 2022").
He contended that alleged seizure is made from vehicle Swift
Desire Car in which allegedly appellant is found travelling.
Samples have not been obtained separately from each of 60
packets stated to be seized by police. Sample of contraband has
been collected after mixing of packets and thereafter it was sent to
laboratory. According to Rule 10 (3) of the Rules of 2022, sample
is required to be obtained from each of packet and, therefore,
quantity as alleged to have been seized from possession of
appellant- Mukesh Sahu is not proved that police seized 60.42 kg
of contraband (ganja). He next contended that independent
witness PW2 and PW3 have not supported case of prosecution
and in absence of which appellant could not have been convicted.
He lastly submits that contraband alleged to have been seized
from possession of this appellant has not been produced before
trial Court.
Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, learned counsel appearing for
appellant- Sampat Sagar in CRA No.1285 of 2025 would adopt
submissions and ground raised by Mr. Aman Pandey learned
counsel for appellant in CRA No.602 of 2025.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes
submissions of learned counsel for respective appellants in all
three appeals on IA No.1, applications for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail and would submit that seizure and memorandum
witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 have supported the case of
prosecution.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
As per case of prosecution, allegation against appellant
Nandkishore Sahu, appellant in CRA No.436 of 2025 is that, police
received secret information that four persons were traveling in
Swift Desire Car and Innova Car with contraband (ganja). Based
on said information, police intercepted Desire Car which was
running in front of Innova Car coming from Odisha side and going
towards Bagbahara (C.G.). Swift Desire Car was running in front of
Innova Car . Both the cars were stopped and during search police
seized contraband in 60 packets from Swift Desire Car.
During trial, prosecution examined Dilip Verma as PW2 who
is one of seizure witness. Dilip Verma in his deposition stated that
while travelling on motorcycle to village Khoplipadav, on the way,
police party was standing checking vehicles. They were stopped
and thereafter they were informed about proceedings drawn for
seizure of ganja. After issuing notice to them, police seized
contraband (ganja) from Swift Desire Car. He also stated that
many packets were found from Desire Car which were seized. He
also stated that from packets, smell of ganja was coming out.
Similar is the statement of Bholaram Sahu (PW3), another seizure
witness.
Investigating Officer Kartik Ram Ratre is examined as PW8.
In his deposition also he supported seizure of contraband from
Desire Car. In para-13 of his examination-in-chief he stated that
out of 60 packets he has taken sample from all the packets and
after crushing, smelling and tasting, it revealed that substance
which was in packet were contraband (ganja).
Considering the aforementioned evidence available on
record and looking to the quantity of contraband (ganja) which
were proved to be transported by appellants, I do not consider
present to be an appropriate case to suspend the substantive jail
sentence imposed on the appellants in all three appeals.
Accordingly, IA No.1, applications for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail filed by respective appellants in all three
appeals are hereby dismissed.
Sd/--/-/---/-/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
