1 - Santosh Barle S/o Late Chote Lal Barle, Aged About 54 Years, R/o v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Mohan Nagar
Case Details
Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 1 2025:CGHC:36213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4802 of 2025 1 - Santosh Barle S/o Late Chote Lal Barle, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Titurdih Milan Chowk Durg Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Mukesh Mishra S/o Santosh Mishra Aged About 26 Years R/o Bambe Awwas Urla Durg Present R/o Titurdih Durg Police Station Mohan Nagar District Durg Chhattisgarh (Cause Title Is Not Properly Mentioned In Copy Of Impugned Order) ---Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Mohan Nagar,
Legal Reasoning
Disrict Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MCRC No. 4825 of 2025 Arun Chhati S/o Nanda Chhati, Aged About 37 Years, R/o. Dangbadi, Thana Ambodala, District Rayagada Odisha, ---Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Anurag Jha and Mr. Aman Tamrakar, For Respondents /State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, PL Advocates. 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. These are the First Bail Applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 660/2024 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) under Section 20 (b), 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.12.2024, a secret information has received from the informant that Suman Barle, Shailendra Pandey, Tulsi Barley have kept contraband article ganja in their rented house at Titurdih Nayapara near Bhagat Singh School and searching customer for selling the contraband article and when the concerned police arrested them and recovered 8 packets of contraband article ganja which is total 16.782 kg along with cash of Rs. 68,200/- from the possession of co-accused persons and the name of the applicants have come into light from the memorandum statement of the co-accused person. Thereafter, the present applicants were arrested by the police and the aforesaid offence has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants in MCRC No. 4802 of 2025 submits that from the joint possession of three co-accused persons 16.782 kgs ganja has been recovered and so far as the present applicants are concerned, no recovery of any incriminating articles of contraband has been recovered. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, the applicant No. 1 has no criminal antecedents, however applicant No. 2 has two criminal antecedents and the explanation of the same has been given in the covering memo, wherein Crime No. 3 218/2024 registered for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 427, 325 and 34 of IPC is pending, whereas in Crime No. 387/2024 is concerned, it arose due to family dispute. They are in jail since 14.04.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant in MCRC No. 4825 of 2025 that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter, the said contraband seized from the co-accused person not from the applicant. He further submits that the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1175 of 2025 and MCRC No. 2371 of 2025 vide orders dated 10.02.2025 and 17.04.2025 respectively and further submitted that there is no any criminal antecedents of the applicant, he is in jail since 21.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail applications and submit that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that from the joint possession of the applicants and other co-accused persons contraband article i.e. 16.782 kg of Ganja is seized, therefore, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the quantity of ganja seized from the possession of the co-accused person i.e., a total of 16.782 kgs, which is less than the commercial quantity. Also considering the fact that in MCRC No. 4802/2025, the applicant No. 1 has no criminal antecedents, 4 whereas, applicant No. 2 has two criminal antecedents and the explanation of the same has been given in the covering memo and further in MCRC No. 4825 of 2025, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, he has no criminal antecedents and the contraband article ganja was recovered from the co-accused not from the present applicant and co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1175 of 2025 and MCRC No. 2371 of 2025 vide orders dated 10.02.2025 and 17.04.2025 respectively. The applicants are in jail since 14.04.2025 and 21.05.2025 respectively, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the case. 8. Let the Applicant No.1- Santosh Barle & Applicant No. 2- Mukesh Mishra in MCRC No. 4802/2025 and Applicant- Arun Chhati in MCRC No. 4825 of 2025 involved in Crime No. 660/2024 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) under Section 20(b) and 27 (A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on their furnishing 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 they 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 their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (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 sufÏcient 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. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from today, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - AMIT PATEL Sd/-d/s (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice