1 - Mukesh Kumar Mehar S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Mehar Aged About 27 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17135-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 201 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Kumar Mehar S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Mehar Aged About 27 Years Village Bharari, Police Station- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Govinda @Sonu Mehar S/o Shyam Sundar Mehar Aged About 33 Years Village Bharari, Police Station- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... 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 (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Police) Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Ratanpur, District Bilaspur C.G. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondents
Legal Reasoning
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Petitioner For Respondents-State Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : : Hon'ble Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15.04.2025 Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner 2 and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A., for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. This 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 produce 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.) before the learned trial Court i.e. learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 48/2024 within stipulated time. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be 10.2 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 coughsyrup 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 Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.04.22 10:53:33 +0530 3 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 incomplete information to the petitioner No.1. The inaction and arbitrary manners of the respondent authorities is bad, illegal and arbitrary, who did not 4 provide CCTV footage of Police Station Ratanpur to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that being aggrieved by the inaction and arbitrary manners of the respondent authorities, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as WPCR No. 84/2025 and taken up for hearing on
Decision
10.02.2025, but this Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to law before the appropriate forum. Thereafter the petitioner No. 2 filed an application under Section 91 of the CrPC before the learned trial Court for production of the CCTV camera footage, but the learned Trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 13.03.2025 stating that the CCTV camera footage of the aforesaid mentioned period has been deleted. Therefore learned counsel for the petitioners prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to produce CCTV footage from 18.03.2024 at 11:30 pm to 20.03.2024 till 11:00 pm of Police Station Ratanpur District Bilaspur. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Section 91 of CrPC on 13.03.2025, but the petitioners have not challenged the same. 7. On this, learned counsel for the petitioner to which learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to file afresh petition challenging the order dated 13.03.2025. 5 8. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated13.03.2025 by which his application was rejected, therefore, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty, as prayed for subject to depositing a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court and submit a receipt of the same at the time of filing of the fresh petition, if any, and the amount so deposited, if any, shall be transmitted to the Government Special School for Visual & Hearing Impaired, Bilaspur. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Jyoti