1 - Indrajeet Mahto S/o Ram Chandra Mahto Aged About 45 Years Village Mahmand v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15597-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 182 of 2025 1 - Indrajeet Mahto S/o Ram Chandra Mahto Aged About 45 Years Village Mahmand, Lalkhadan, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - City Superintendent Of Police Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge 2 Per Arvind Kumar Verma on Board
Decision
Order , Judge 03/04/2025 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court ie. learned Special Judge (NDPS) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) in Special Session Case (NDPS) No.10/2024. 10.2. It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent police authority to conduct enquiry on complaint dated 17.08.2024 made by the petitioner’s wife and further be pleased to direct the respondent police authority to produce the inquiry report before the learned Trial Court ie. learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Special Session Case (NDPS) No 10/2024. 10.3. It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court ie. learned Special Judge (NDPS) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) in Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 10/2024 whereby the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 94 read with Section 346 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been rejected on the ground that there is no such enquiry report 3 on the complaint dated 17.08.2024 made by the wife of the petitioner. 3. Facts of the case in brief is that on receiving a secret information through the informant the police seized 665.28 grams of narcotic NRX Dicyclomine Hydrochloride Tramadol Hydrochloride Acetaminophen capsules from the possession fo the petitioner and the FIR has been registered against the petitioner and was arrested for the offence punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. Charge sheet was filed and the case is pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) in Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 10/2024. During the confinement of the petitioner in jail, wife of the petitioner namely Nisha Devi Mahto made a written complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkand and SP, Bilaspur on 17.08.2024 regarding false implication of her husband. Thereafter the petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court in M.Cr.C,. No. 6298/2024 vide order dated 20.09.2024. On 07.02.2025, the petitioner filed application under Section 94 read with Section 346 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the learned trial court to pass an order directing the respondent police authorities to submit the enquiry report on complaint dated 17.08.2024 made by the wife of the petitioner. The said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 22.02.2025 against which the petitioner has come before this Court by way of this petition. 4 4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that on the date of incident, the police persons came to his shop and took him and his son to the police station and on the next day his son was released and he has been taken into custody for the offence under NDPS Act. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner made a written complaint to the Station House Officer, SP and IG Bilaspur by producing electronic evidences in a pen drive regarding the incident and for conducting enquiry. He submits that in the matter of NDPS Act, the Apex Couer in the case of Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 10 SCR 379, has held that the offence under Section NDPS Act being more serious in nature, higher degree of proof is needed to convict the accused-Strict compliance with the provisions and a fair trial is necessary- Individual human rights and dignity of accused should be recognized because Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act presumes culpable mental state of accused on possession of illicit article by him and reverse burden on accused to prove to the contrary. It is also contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the burden to prove himself as an innocent is on the petitioner himself hence, it is necessary to inquire the CCTV footage dated 4.12.2023 which was installed in the medical shop of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 7. On perusal of the records it is clear that the statements of the witnesses have been recorded however, since counsel for the petitioner was not present on the said date for cross-examination of the investigating officer the case was adjourned. It is evident from the application that the inquiry report on the complaint filed before the court and seeking adjournment is filed along with the written complaint made by the wife of the petitioner on 17.08.2024 which shows that there is no acknowledgment to this effect. In the complaint, wife of the petitioner has stated that the CCTV footage is kept with her in safe custody and will be produced at the time of investigation and she has also alleged that on the date of incident, at about 2.00 pm they came in a car and took the petitioner and his son and on what basis action was taken against the petitioner for selling drugs at Chhat Ghat bridge whereas they reside under Torwa police station and therefore the allegation made against the petitioner is false. 8. It appears that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 4.12.2023 and in that situation, the complaint ought to have been made by the complainant immediately instead of waiting till 03.01.2024 ie. when the investigation is concluded. Charges were framed on 12.02.2024 and statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded on 19.03.2024, 22.04.2024, 6 19.06.2024 and other dates. Thereafter the wife of the petitioenr has made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur regarding the false implication of her husband/petitioner. The trial court has observed that it is not proved that the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner has been received by the SP, Bilaspur and it is also not proved that any enquiry is made by the SP with regard to the above complaint as there is no enquiry report. Therefore if the enquiry report is not there, then how is it produced before the Court. 9. Since the wife of the petitioner has not sent the pendrive with regard to the CCTV footage to the Superintendent of police and only made a complaint, the plea of alibi is on the accused and the same would be decided by the trial court on merits. Therefore, the alleged complaint made by the wife of the petitioner thereafter has not been proved and since there was no enquiry report, the petition being baseless having no substance is hereby rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.04 17:23:31 +0530