Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:7171-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 84 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Kumar Mehar S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Mehar Aged About 27 Years Village- Bharari, Police Station- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Govinda @ Sonu Mehar S/o Shyam Sundar Mehar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Bharari, Police Station- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.02.10 17:16:30 +0530 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Station House Officer Police Station- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Decision
Order on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide CCTV footage from 18.03.2024 at 11.30 PM to 20.03.2024 till 11.00 PM of Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) to the petitioners within stipulated time. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.2024 Sub-Inspector Kamlesh Banjare posted at Police Station Ratanpur received a secret information by the informant that the petitioner No.2 is waiting customers on the way to go Village Bharari kept banned drug cough syrup in a green colour bag hanging in black colour Pulsar Motor Cycle. On the basis of the secret information given by the secret informant, the police of Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) conducted raid at Bharari Road where the accused Govinda @ Sonu Mehar met and found in possession of 17 numbers Codeine Phasphate Syrup Maxcough in green colour bag. Each injection contains 100 ML, total 3 quantity 1700 ML. Cost of each bottle Rs. 155/- total cost Rs. 2635/- and sold amount Rs. 600/- recovered from the possession of the petitioner No.2. The police of C.G.) Police Station registered FIR bearing Crime No. 223/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 21 and 22 of NDPS Act against the petitioner No.2. Charge-sheet has been filed and the case is pending before the learned 2nd Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) as Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 48/2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No.2 has neither committed nor participated in any crime and he has falsely been implicated by the police. The alleged drug has not been seized from the conscious possession of the petitioner No.2. The actual fact is that on 18.03.2024 the petitioner No.2 had gone to his in-law's house at Village - Dagori, Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) to participate in a wedding ceremony. On 18.03.2024 in the night at about 12.00 hours a police team reached there and forcefully took the petitioner No.2 to Police Station Ratanpur and registered a false and fabricated case against him. On 15.07.2024, the petitioner No.1 filed an application before the respondent authorities for proper investigation. On 18.07.2024, the petitioner No.1 filed an application under Right to Information Act to provide CCTV footage from 18.03.2024 at 11.30 PM to 20.03.2024 till 11.00 PM, but the Public Information Officer, Police Station Ratanpur did not provide the aforesaid information till today, which shows that the police falsely implicated the petitioner No.2 in crime in question. On 25.10.2024, the respondent No.4 provided 4 incomplete information to the petitioner No.1. The inaction and arbitrary manners of the respondent authorities is bad, illegal and arbitrary, who did not provide CCTV footage of Police Station Ratanpur to the petitioners till today. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in a similar matter of "Rahul Agrawal and State of Chhattisgarh & others" WPCR No. 297/2024, this Hon'ble Court disposed of the case vide order dated 20.08.2024 with observation as follows:- "9. Considering the submission made by the learned State counsel, the present petition is disposed off. However, the concerned Police Station is directed to submit a report within a week before the learned trial Court in accordance with law” 6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner can be very well redressed before the learned trial Court and further, the bail application of the petitioners have already been rejected by this Court. He further submits, that so far as the matter of "Rahul Agrawal and State of Chhattisgarh & others" WPCR No. 297/2024 is concerned, the facts of the present case are entirely different as in the case of Rahul Agrawal (Supra), the accused filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for production of the CCTV camera footage, but in the present case, no such application has been preferred and as such, the petition preferred by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. 7. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further the fact that bail application of the petitioners have 5 already been rejected by this Court and so far as the case of Rahul Agrawal (Supra) is concerned, the accused filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for production of the CCTV camera footage therein, but in the present case, no such application has been preferred and the case is distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present case and as such, the relief sought for in the present petition cannot be granted. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to law before the appropriate Forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet