Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Aamanaka
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5955 of 2025 Tanmay Goinde Urf Chintu Son of Late Pramod Goinde Aged About 26 Years Resident of Mahavir Nagar, Gulmohar Vatika (Wrongly Mentioned As Golmohna Vatika), Near Super Market, Rajenda Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Aamanaka, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ankur Agrawal and Mr. Raza Ali, For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.29 11:00:47 +0530 28/08/2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 109/2025 registered at Police Station- Aamanaka, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 21 (b) of the 2 Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act and Section 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Earlier sbail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 27.06.2025 passed in MCRC No. 4947/2025. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that upon receiving information from an informer, the Police searched the main accused, Md Sohail Khan, near the gate of Kedia Business Park, Chandandih on 12.04.2025. During the search, 14 grams and 29 milligrams of Heroin (Chitta) was found in the possession of the main accused. The main accused was accompanied by the present applicant and other co- accused at the time of the incident. The police arrested the main accused and the applicant, and subsequently implicated the applicant under the aforementioned offence. A charge sheet was filed against the applicant before the Special Judge (NDPS) in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that this is the applicant's second bail application. The contraband alleged to have been recovered is less than the commercial quantity and was found from the motorcycle's pillion seat on which the co-accused, Mohammad Sohail Khan, was sitting. It is submitted that the applicant had no knowledge about the said contraband being carried by the co-accused. Although the applicant had raised this contention during the hearing of the first bail application, there was no specific averment to that effect, due to which the first bail application was rejected. It is now specifically 3 submitted, as stated in paragraph 6(h) of the present bail application, that the applicant had no knowledge regarding the possession of contraband by the main accused, Mohammad Sohail Khan. It is also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.04.2025. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. She further submits that quantity of contraband article i.e. 14.29 grams of heroin (Chitta) which has been seized from the possession of the present applicant, is less than the commercial quantity. 6. I Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. After hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the fact that this is the applicant's second bail application, further the contraband alleged to have been recovered, is less than the commercial quantity and was found from the motorcycle's pillion seat on which the co-accused, Mohammad Sohail Khan, was sitting, further the applicant had no knowledge about the said contraband being carried by the co-accused, although the applicant had raised this contention during the hearing of the first bail application, there was no specific averment to that effect, due to which the first bail application was rejected, it is now specifically submitted, as stated in paragraph 6(h) of the present bail 4 application, that the applicant had no knowledge regarding the possession of contraband by the main accused, Mohammad Sohail Khan, further considering the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.04.2025, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Tanmay Goinde Urf Chintu involved in Crime No. 109/2025 registered at Police Station- Aamanaka, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 sufficient 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 5 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 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 sufficient 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. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Preeti Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice