1 - Fakir Rajhans S/o Thakur Rajhans Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Laxmiprasad v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Sta
Case Details
PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.07.08 11:02:17 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:30918 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1720 of 2025 1 - Fakir Rajhans S/o Thakur Rajhans Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Laxmiprasad Thana Sadar Boudh District - Boudh (Odisha) 2 - Karan Singh S/o Gopal Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Chitaura Thana Surkhi District - Sagar (M.P.) 3 - Kunwar Singh S/o Rama Ahirwar Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Guraiya Thana Surkhi District - Sagar (M.P.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Singhoda District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
“12. It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non- corroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case [see Pardeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC 808 , (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 420].” 8. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the mode and manner in which huge quantity of contraband 5 (Ganja) has been recovered and the applicants were found involved in transporting the said contraband as also that the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracts in the present case. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 9. Accordingly, this Bail Application is rejected. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka
Arguments
: Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 07/07/2025 2 1. This is the second application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.79/2021 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence under Sections 20 (B) of the NDPS Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same after examination of material witnesses vide order dated 08.06.2023 passed in MCRC No.4048/2023. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 08.09.2021, Police seized 1 quintal of contraband (Ganja) from the possession of present applicants, therefore aforesaid offence has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the applicants are in jail since 08.09.2021 and conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. He would further submit that material witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, considering all these aspects, the applicants may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He further submits that rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act attracts in the matter and places reliance in the matter of Rizwan Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627 & State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122. 3 6. In the matter of Rajesh (supra), the law relating to exercise of bail application in the offences under the NDPS Act has been dealt with and the following was observed at para-18:- “18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429 , 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522, it has been elaborated as under: “7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) (1990) 1 SCC 95, 1990 SCC (Cri) 65 as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24) 24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the 4 society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.’ 8.To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i)there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii)that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio- economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.” 7. In the matter of Rizwan Khan (supra), a law has been laid down that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. It was materially observed at para-12 which reads thus:-