Kamlesh Kumar Dhurve S/o Shivkumar Dhurve Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 18 v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Kawardha, District
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:4033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8367 of 2024 Kamlesh Kumar Dhurve S/o Shivkumar Dhurve Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Beside Nehru College, Dongargarh, Police Station - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Present Address - Ramnagar, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. MCRC No. 415 of 2025 Dashrath Kumar Jaiswal S/o Siyaram Jaiswal Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Khandsara, Police Station- Pipariya, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. 2 MCRC No. 494 of 2025 Ramji @ Chhotelal Jaiswal S/o Malikram Jaiswal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Khandsara, Police Station Pandatarai, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. For Applicant : Mr. Devesh Chandra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. ---- Non-applicant Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/01/2025 1. Since the above three bail applications are arising out of same crime number, same police station and same offence, so they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.693/2024, registered at Police Station Kawardha, District: Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 11.11.2024, as per secret information received from the informant that two persons are transporting Ganja by a blue colour Tata Ace vehicle bearing 3 registration No. CG-09JF-0595. On the basis of such information, the police party conducted raid and have seized 14.270 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of the applicant Kamlesh along with co- accused namely Annpurna @ Arush Sahu and on the basis of their memorandum statement some other co-accused have been made accused in this case. Therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They further submits that the quantity of contraband article i.e. 14.270 Kgs of Ganja was recovered from the joint possession of the accused persons namely Annpurna and Kamlesh and after recorded their memorandum statement some other accused persons have been made accused however, from whom no contraband article (Ganja) has been recovered. They further submits that the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the joint possession of said two accused persons, is less than commercial quantity. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. They also submits that from the possession of the applicants intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been 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 4 possession of the said two accused only 14.270 kgs of Ganja has been seized. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 11.11.2024, 01.01.2025 and 03.01.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, they prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application of the present applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse the said submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the quantity of contraband article i.e. 14.270 Kgs of Ganja was recovered from the joint possession of the accused persons namely Annpurna and Kamlesh and after recorded their memorandum statement some other accused persons have been made accused however, from whom no contraband article (Ganja) has been recovered and further the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the joint possession of said two accused persons, is less than commercial quantity and the applicants have no criminal antecedent and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, this Court 5 is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Let the Applicants- Kamlesh Kumar Dhurve, Dashrath Kumar Jaiswal and Ramji @ Chhotelal Jaiswal, involved in Crime No.693/2024, registered at Police Station Kawardha, District: Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such 6 proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberated or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal