Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 January, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1/5
2025:CGHC:4463
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 697 of 2025
1 - Manoj Kumar Singh S/o Hemnarayan Singh Aged About 56 Years Resident Of
Village Jhadsuguda, B.T.M. Colony, Police Station Sadar, District Jharsuguda
(Odisha)
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Out Post Basdei, Police Of
Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
24.01.2025
1.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to
the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
620/2024 registered at Police Station – Out Post, Basdei, Surajpur,
District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, for the offence under Section 20(B),
27(A) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 04.11.2024, the police
went to the Surajpur Road to check the passenger and when the
SHAYNA
KADRI
Digitally signed by
SHAYNA KADRI
Date: 2025.01.25
13:45:33 +0530
2/5
passenger were waiting for the train, the police obtained the name
and address and other particulars of passengers and in the
meantime, one of the accused i.e. Karambeer Kumar Patil Chhotu
was standing in a suspicious condition nearby the parking of railway
and since the answer given by Karambeer Patil @ Chhotu was not
satisfactory, the police search the bag and the police seized 5.299
KG of contraband ganja from his possession. Police investigated
the matter and the notice under Section 67 of NDPS Act was issued
to Karambeer Patil, in which he stated that he brought the Ganja for
applicant, subsequently the police investigated the matter and
arrested the present applicant for the commission of alleged
offences.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further
submits that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions
under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant
from the superior authority. He also submits that from the
possession of the applicant intermediate quantity of Ganja was
seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of Ganja as prescribed under
the schedule is more than 20 Kgs and from the possession of the
present applicant only 5.299 Kgs of Ganja was seized. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant
has 14 criminal antecedents to which he has already been given
explanation in present bail application. He further submits that the
present applicant is in jail since 15.11.2024 and the conclusion of
3/5
the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant
of regular bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-
applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the
charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the
competent Court. He further submits that from the possession of the
applicant contraband article i.e. 5.299 Kgs of Ganja was seized,
therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case
that the present applicant has 14 criminal antecedents out of which
only one case is under N.D.P.S. Act in which applicant has already
been acquitted. Moreover, contraband article i.e. 5.299 Kgs of
Ganja was recovered from the possession of the present applicant,
which is less than commercial quantity. Also considering the fact
that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the
competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 15.11.2024
conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of
the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this
case.
7. Let the Applicant – Manoj Kumar Singh, involved in Crime No.
620/2024 registered at Police Station – Out Post, Basdei, Surajpur,
District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, for the offence under Section 20(B),
27(A) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
4/5
1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two
local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect
that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates
fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be
open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of
bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against him under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure his presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued
and the applicant fails to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against him, in
accordance with law, under Section 209 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person,
before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening
of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording
5/5of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the
opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is
deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be
open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse
of liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.
8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an
earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of
six months from the receipt of this order in accordance with law, if
there is no legal impediment.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Shayna
[ad_1]
Source link