Ravishankar Prasad S/o Late Baso Sao Aged About 38 Years (Not Mentioned In The v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Padmanbhpur, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:17638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2555 of 2025 Ravishankar Prasad S/o Late Baso Sao Aged About 38 Years (Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order) (Mentioned In The Charge Sheet) R/o Padamgali, Baripath, Persian Temple Banjhipur, Patna, Distt. Patna Bihar ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Padmanbhpur, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 352/2024 registered at Police Station- Padmanbhpur, District- Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 21(C), 29(A) of NDPS Act. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 16/09/2024 as per secret 2 information received from the informant that that Hardik Bhoi and Dilip Sahu both are trying to sell psychotropic medicine near the central jail Durg and when they reached near the Jail canteen Padhmanabhupur distt durg they were apprehended by the police personnel with alprazolam tablet total 675 pieces total weight 303.6 Gram and Rs. 1000/- from the Hardik Bhoi and 184 pieces Tramadol capsule total 126.96 gram from the Dilip Sahu and they have no any document regarding the aforesaid tablets and upon the memorandum of Hardik Bhoi, he has stated that he has ordered these capsule from the Deepak Sahu and Bhuneshwar, and they deliver it through delivery and bhuneshwar Bareth and Deepak sahu ordered from amazon and whose payment were done in the account of present applicant and the present applicant getting the capsule by courier from Kishan Yadav resident of Patna Bihar. Therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has no any role in the present case and the allegation on the present applicant is that the money from selling psychotropic capsule has been credited in the account of the present applicant and as per the bank statement of the co-accused nothing has been transferred from the account of co-accused to the account of present applicant and the bank statement is the part of charge- sheet and in the entire charge-sheet, the account of the present applicant is not reflected and the account seized by the police is not 3 belongs to the present applicant. He further submits that the present applicant is working as dealer of land and he has sold many land to the different person. The present applicant is working with the Silpi Kishore in his land dealing business on the commission basis and he gets 2% as commission after selling land. He further submits that the seized contraband article which was recovered from the co- accused not from the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 01.04.2025, he has filed afÏdavit with regards to the transfer of money into the bank account of the accused, he stated that no such money from the alleged sell of the narcotic tablets has been deposited in the bank account of the present applicant as the two phone numbers and one bank account in which the money is alleged to deposited are not belonging to the present applicant. He further submits that the letter dated 05.10.2024 annexed herewith) is the letter sent by the police station Padmanabhpur to the Branch Manager, Indusind bank seeking details of the bank account No. of the applicant bu the bank has returned the letter with note stating no such bank account and the bank account statement of the co-accused Bhuneshwar is also attached in the charge-sheet and the same also does not reflect any transfer in the name of the present applicant and the applicant is in jail since 16.09.2024 and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the 4 State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and further the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused, is much above the commercial quantity and on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused, the present applicant has been made accused and some amount was transferred relating to the contraband article, to the account of the applicant hence, it is an organized crime committed by the accused. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 16.09.2024 and the fact that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 01.04.2025, an afÏdavit has been filed with regards to the transfer of money into the bank account of the accused that no such money from the alleged sell of the narcotic tablets has been deposited in the bank account of the present applicant as the two phone numbers and one bank account in which the money is alleged to deposited are not belonging to the present applicant and further considering the fact that the said contraband article has been recovered from the possession of the co-accused namely Hardik and Dilip not from the possession of the applicant, on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused, the present applicant has been made accused however, the case of the present 5 applicant is better than the case of co-accused and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 9. Let the applicant – Ravishankar Prasad, involved in Crime No. 352/2024 registered at Police Station- Padmanbhpur, District- Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 21(C), 29(A) of NDPS Act. be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on 6 the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant 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 applicant is 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 him in accordance with law. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - Kunal S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice