Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.03.29 11:10:39 +0530 2025:CGHC:14875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1596 of 2025 1 - Abdul Wajid S/o Wahid Ansari Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Plot No. 567, A White House Campati Road, Apalbadi, P.S. Kapilnagar District Nagpur Maharashtra 2 - Mohd. Sabir Ansari S/o Jamaluddin Ansari Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Mominpura Ansar Nagar, P.S. Gandhibag, District Nagpur Maharashtra 3 - Shashank Dhargave S/o Atisa Dhargave Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Mekosabar Christen Colony, Goutam Nagar, Katvi Chowk, Ps. Jaripatka, District NagpurMaharashtra 4 - Mohd. Javed S/o Mohd. Kalim Aged About 19 Years Resident Of Meminpur Ansarnagar, Ps. Gandhibag, District Nagpur Maharashtra 5 - Mohd. Sohel S/o Mohd. Sayeed Aged About 20 Years Resident Of Near Ansari Hotel, Muslim Ground Mominpur, Ps. Gandhibag, District Nagpur Maharashtra ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Singhoda District Mahasamund (C.G.) . ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.03.2025 2 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 applicants as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 11/2025 registered at Police Station- Singhoda, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the concerned police station Singhoda received a secret information through the informant that on the date of incident, unknown persons have kept illegal contraband ganja in their possession to sale and police has seized 16 kg. contraband ganja from place of incident at open place and as a result thereof, police has registered offence publishable under section 20 (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act against the applicants 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and the said contraband article i.e. 16 kgs of Ganja was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicants. 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 other co- accused 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 appellants is 16 3 kgs of Ganja was seized. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 25.01.2025 and conclusion of 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 and also endorse the said submission that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. He further submits that from the possession contraband article i.e. 16 Kgs of Ganja was seized and from their memorandum statements, the present applicants name were come into light, which shows that it is organized crime, 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 that the contraband article i.e. 16 Kgs of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the applicants, which is less than commercial quantity. Moreover, the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. 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 25.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial may 4 take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Abdul Wajid, Mohd Sabir Ansari, Shashank Dhargave, Mohd. Javed & Mohd. Sohel involved in Crime No. 11/2025 registered at Police Station- Singhoda, District Mahasamund, District (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on each 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 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 applicants 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 his 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 fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court 5 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 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 them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - vaibhav Sd/-Sd Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice