NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1698 of 2024 Dhiraj Diwakar S/o Gautam aged about 33 years R/o Village - Jogiya, Police Station Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.)

---- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer of Police Station -

Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.)

---- Non-Applicant (Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Applicant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate.

For Non-Applicant : Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

25/04/2024

1. This is the irst bail application iled under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 73/2024 registered at Police Station Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.), for the ofence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act and 20(b) of NDPS Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.02.2024 the Police of Police Station Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) received a secret information from the informant and on the basis of said information the Police conducted raid and seized 6 bulk liter of country made liquor and 50 gram Ganja from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the ofence has been registered against the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and 6 bulk liter of country made liquor and 50 grams Ganja was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. It is further argued by him that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years, further the prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. He also submits that from the possession of the applicant intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, 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 possession of the applicant only 50 grams Ganja has been seized. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has three criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, out of which two are under Section 36(C) of the Excise Act which has already been disposed of by paying the ine amount and one is of the year 2021 under Section 34(1)(A) of the Excise Act registered at Crime No. 87/2021, in which he has already been acquitted vide order dated 28.06.2023, the applicant is in jail since 16.02.2024 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been iled in the present case before the competent Court and the applicant has three criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, out of which two are under Section 36(C) of the Excise Act and one is under Section 34(1)(A) of the Excise Act. He further submits that the 6 bulk liters of country made liquor and 50 grams Ganja was recovered from the possession of the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has three criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, out of which two are under Section 36(C) of the Excise Act which has already been disposed of by paying the ine amount and one is of the year 2021 under Section 34(1)(A) of the Excise Act registered at Crime No. 87/2021, in which he has already been acquitted vide order dated 28.06.2023 and also considering the fact that the quantity of liquor and contraband article