2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 15827
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AJAY CHOUHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRC/4802/2024
NAFR HIGH COURT Of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4802 of 2024 Ajay Chouhan S/o Rajendra Chouhan Aged About 21 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, Purani Sabri Block No. 27 F 3 Bhopal, Thana Kamla Nagar District -
Bhopal Madhya Pradesh ---- Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur C.G.
---- Non-applicant (Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. Faiz Kazi, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
12.07.2024
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. 430/2024 registered at Police Station- Khamtarai, District- Raipur, (C.G.), for the ofence punishable under Section 20(b)of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the investigating oicer received classiied information from the informant, while conducting raid in near railway line in front of over bridge and seized 9.900 kgs of Ganja from the applicant thereafter, the applicant was arrested. The applicant is in custody since 05.05.2024 and the fact that the applicant is been remanded to the judicial custody makes it apparent that there is no need of custodial interrogation.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further 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 9.900 kgs of contraband (Ganja) has been seized and he is in jail since 05.05.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, appearing for the State/non-
applicant opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been iled in the present case before the competent Court and there is one previous criminal antecedent of the applicant under the IPC of the year 2023. She further submits that from the possession of the applicant contraband articles i.e. 9.900 kg of Ganja has recovered from the possession of the present applicant, therefore, the present applicant 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 that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent under the IPC of the year 2023 and the contraband article which has been recovered from the present applicant i.e. 9.900 kg Ganja which is less than commercial quantity, and in the present case, charge-sheet has been iled before the competent Court, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Let the Applicant- Ajay Chouhan, involved in Crime No. 430/2024 registered at Police Station- Khamtarai, District- Raipur, (C.G.), for the ofence punishable under Section 20(b)of the NDPS Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall ile an undertaking to the efect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates ixed 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 ixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suicient cause, the trial court may