Dewangan High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33455 NAFR KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4474 of 2025 Sulesh Kumar S/o Rangbahadur Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Kareeldhova, Police Station Baikuntpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Khadgawa District- M.C.B. (C.G.) --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. MCRC No. 5351 of 2025 Naresh Digal S/o Gajendra Digal Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Kalaadi Guchhapoda District - Kandhmal (Odisha) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Khadgawa District- M.C.B. (C.G.) --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. 2 MCRC No. 5328 of 2025 Bunde Lal S/o Devsharan Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Koudimar, Police Station And Tahsil Khadgawan, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer Police Station Khadgawan, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. Since the above three bail applications are arising out of same crime number, same Police Stations however, in MCRC No. 4474/2025, offence is different, so they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.93/2025, registered at Police Station Khadgawa, District: M.C.B. (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of NDPS Act (MCRC No. 5328/2025 and MCRC No. 5351/2025) whereas in MCRC No. 4474/2025 offence is under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act only. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the police received secret 3 information from an informant stating that the applicant, Sulesh Kumar, was in possession of contraband (Ganja) with the intent to sell. That, acting on the said information, the police reached the specified location, set up a blockade and conducted a raid. During the raid, the police seized 2.195 kilograms of Ganja from the possession of the applicant Sulesh, which was allegedly kept inside the dikki (storage compartment) of his motorcycle. Based on this recovery, aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant Sulesh Kumar. During the course of investigation and on the basis of the memorandum statement of applicant Sulesh Kumar, two other individuals, namely Bunde Lal and Naresh Digal, were implicated as co-accused in the case and were subsequently arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and the contraband Ganja was not seized from the conclusive possession of the applicants. They further submits that that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. They also submits that from the possession of the applicant- Sulesh Kumar less than intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized and on the basis of his memorandum statement, applicants namely Bundelal and Naresh Digal have been falsely implicated and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs and from the joint possession of the 4 applicants only 2.195 kg Ganja has been seized. He later submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 28.04.2025, 28.04.2025 and 19.05.2025 respectively and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, they prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has not filed before the competent Court further the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the joint possession of the accused persons i.e. 2.195 Kgs of Ganja and further the applicant namely Suresh Kumar has one previous criminal antecedent under the BNSS and the rest others have no criminal antecedents. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has not filed before the competent Court, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, the applicant namely Suresh Kumar has one previous criminal antecedent under the BNSS and the rest others have no criminal antecedents and further the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the joint possession of the accused persons i.e. 2.195 Kgs of Ganja and they are in jail since 28.04.2025, 28.04.2025 and 19.05.2025 respectively and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, 5 therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 8. Let the Applicants- Sulesh Kumar, Naresh Digal and Bunde Lal involved in Crime No.93/2025, registered at Police Station Khadgawa, District: M.C.B. (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of NDPS Act (MCRC No. 5328/2025 and MCRC No. 5351/2025) whereas in MCRC No. 4474/2025 offence is under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act only, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (each) (local surety in case of applicant- Naresh Digal) 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 them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants 6 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. (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 deliberated 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal