ORDER :

1. These three bail applications arise out of same crime numbers, therefore, they are being heard analogously and disposed by a common order.

2. The applicants have preferred these first bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as they are in jail since 05.10.2021 and 13.10.2021 respectively in connection with Crime No.36/2021 registered at Police Station Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Raipur (C.G.). The offence alleged against the applicant in MCRC NO.4165 of 2022 is under under Sections 8(b), 20(b)ii(c), 26, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act and the offence alleged against the applicants in MCRC No.7859 of 2022 & MCRC 7866 of 2022 is under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)ii(C), 26, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 04.10.2021 on the basis of secret information, the officer of DRI stopped a truck bearing registration No. AP 39-TP-9706. The driver and other occupants of the truck informed that they are transporting Murmura. However, subsequently, they made admission before the Office of DRI that they are transporting Ganja, which is kept below the Murmura. The truck was searched and seizure of 833.271 kg of ganja was made from the accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in this case. They further submit that there are total 7 accused persons in the present crime out of which 3 are before this Court. Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate submits that the allegations against the accused Dori Lal is that he was involved in commission of crime only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Bandari @ Chandrashekhar. Since the applicant was not present on the spot from where the seizure was made no recovery was made effective from his conscious or physical possession, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tofan Singh Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2021 (4) SCC 1, stating that the memorandum statement of co-accused cannot be read against the present applicant, therefore, there is no legal admissible evidence against him collected by the prosecution, that the charge-sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 05.10.2021 and trial will take time for its conclusion, therefore, he may be released on bail.

5. Mr. Jain, Counsel for the applicant in MCRC No.7859 of 2022 submits that neither applicant was present on the spot nor any recovery was made from his conscious possession and his name was surfaced only on the basis that some bank transactions took place from his bank account, therefore, he has been arrayed as an accused. He submits that there are two people named Amit Kumar therefore, the identity of this person is doubtful in commission of present crime. He submits that even assuming that some bank transaction has been taken place by applicant, it could not attract the fact that he has committed the said crime of serious nature and further submits that when the other vehicle was stopped some documents pertaining to other Amit Kumar was seized which was not related to present applicant and other co-accused also stated that that was other Amit Kumar who was involved in crime not the present applicant. That the applicant is in jail since 13.10.2021 and trial is likely to take time for its conclusion, therefore, he may be released on bail.

6. Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Counsel for the applicant in MCRC No.4165 of 2022 submits that neither any recovery was made from the conscious possession of applicant nor he was present on the spot and his name surfaced only on the basis of memorandum statement of one co-accused Bandari @ Chandrashekhar, therefore, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan singh (Supra) is also applicable in his case and there is no admissible evidence against the present applicant. That the applicant is in jail since 05.10.2021 and trial will take time for its conclusion, therefore, he may be released on bail.

7