SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 5703

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
SONU PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRC/1813/2024



In cases involving possession of contraband above the commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, bail may be denied considering the seriousness of the offence.

Headnote:

BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 20(B)(II)(C) - BAIL APPLICATION - REJECTION

Fact of the Case:

The applicant was arrested for possession of 23.230 kg of Ganja, which is above the commercial quantity, under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the bail application, considering the large quantity of contraband seized and the seriousness of the offence.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail for the offence under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the quantity of contraband seized was above the commercial quantity, indicating the gravity of the offence. Therefore, bail was not granted.

Final Decision: The bail application was rejected.

Order on Board

22/03/2024

1. This is the first bail application filed 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. 441/2023 registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District - Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.10.2023 the Police of Police Station – Gandhinagar, District - Sarguja (C.G.) had received secret information from the informant that two persons have kept contraband article i.e. 23.230 Kg of Ganja on a two wheeler bearing registration number CG-15-CF-0968 on Bajaj Platina thereafter, the Police authority had barricaded the road near Lotary Road Sulabh Sochalaya and stopped the present applicant and the co-accused namely Sonu Patel and searched their bags which they carrying with them. Thereafter, the case has been registered against the applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the police as some of the police personnel who were transferred to another police station even before the date of incident had illegally detained the applicant because of personal animosity. He is in jail since 30.10.2023. The mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied with in this case and the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time.

Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and further submits that contraband article has been seized from the motorcycle of the applicant i.e, 23.230 kg which is much above the commercial quantity. As such, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

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

6. Considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the motorcycle of the applicant i.e, 23 kg 230 grams which is much above the commercial quantity, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sonu Patel, filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., involved in Crime No. 441/2023 registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District - Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected.

7. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top