Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Case Details
AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:9390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1521 of 2025 1 - Mahendra Jaiswal S/o Ramkripal Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years Caste Jaiswal, ... R/o Village - Avantikapur, Police Station And Tahsil - Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.). 2 - Manjesh Jaiswal S/o Ram Subhag Jaiswal Aged About 25 Years Caste Jaiswal, ... R/o Village - Avantikapur, Police Station And Tahsil - Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.). 3 - Ramayan Jaiswal S/o Ramratan Jaisawal Aged About 22 Years Caste Jaiswal, ... R/o Village - Avantikapur, Police Station And Tahsil - Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.). ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Jaynagar (Wrongly Mentioned As Odgi), District - Surajpur (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Smt. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24/02/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for 2 grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 259/2024 registered at Police Station Jaynagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.) under Section 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.12.2024, during vehicle checking at NH-43, the Police of Police Station Jaynagar District – Surajpur (C.G) found 12 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of applicant No.1 and applicant No.3, whereas applicant No.2 was driving the motorcycle on which, the said articles were being carried, thereafter, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and the contraband Ganja was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicants. He further submits that 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 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 joint possession of the applicant No.1 and applicant No.3 only 12 Kgs Ganja has been seized. He later submits that the applicant No.2 and applicant No.3 have no criminal antecedent, whereas the applicant No.1 has one criminal 3 antecedent of the year 2019 under the Excise Act, in which he has already been acquitted vide judgment dated 07.12.2021 and they are in jail since 17.12.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 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 and submits that the applicant No.2 and applicant No.3 have no criminal antecedent, whereas the applicant No.1 has one criminal antecedent of the year 2019 under the Excise Act, in which he has already been acquitted vide judgment dated 07.12.2021 and they are in jail since 17.12.2024. She further submits that from the joint possession of the applicant No.1 and applicant No.3 contraband article i.e. 12 Kgs of Ganja is seized, therefore, the present applicants are 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 and the fact that the applicant No.2 and applicant No.3 have no criminal antecedent, whereas the applicant No.1 has one criminal antecedent of the year 2019 under the Excise Act, in which he has already been acquitted vide judgment dated 07.12.2021, further the contraband article i.e. 12 Kgs of Ganja recovered from the joint possession of the applicant No.1 and applicant No.3 is less than the commercial quantity and the charge-sheet has been filed in the 4 present case before the competent Court, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants - Mahendra Jaiswal, Manjesh Jaiswal and Ramayan Jaiswal, involved in Crime No. 259/2024 registered at Police Station Jaynagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.) under Section 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on their furnishing 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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (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 deliberate 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. 8. OfÏce 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 Akhil