NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MCrC No. 5314 of 2022

Shivendra Kumar Purame S/o Lalsai Aged About 40 Years R/o Karamtara,

Thana And Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

---- Applicant

(In Jail)

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District

Rajnandgaon(C.G.)

---- Respondent

For Applicant

-

Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate

For State

-

Shri Vinod Tekam, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Sachin Singh Rajput

Order on Board

08

/08/2022

1. This first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed by the applicant who is in custody in

connection with Crime No. 130/2022 registered at Police Station-

Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)under offence

punishable U/s. 20(A) of the NDPS Act

2. Case of the prosecution in short is that on 19.05.2022 upon secret

information that the applicant is having the cannabis plant in

agricultural field, police seized 17 little cannabis plant which was

having 20.900Kg of Cannabis(Ganja).

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the cannabis (ganja) plant was

seized from a land which doesnot belong to the present applicant and

the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question as

there is no evidence on record to connect the present applicant in

crime in question. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since

19/05/2022 and trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal.

Chargesheet has been filed. He relied on the judgement of the

-2-

Supreme Court in the matter Alakh Ram Vs. State of U.P. reported

in (2004) 1 SCC 766 to demonstrate that if the prosecution want to

sustain the conviction, it has to show that the land upon which

cannabis are cultivated belongs to the applicant. He does not have

any criminal antecedent, therefore, there is no likelyhood that he

would indulge in similar crime in the future. In the present case the

prosecution has utterly failed to do so in the chargesheet. He further

relies upon the judgement of this court in MCrC No. 7074 of 2020 dtd.

09/11/2020 and submits that the case of the present applicant is

identical, therefore, he may be released bail. He further submits that

from the above it is apparent that there is a resonable ground to

believe that the applicant is innocent, therefore, bail may be granted

to him.

4. On the other hand learned Counsel for the State submits that the

though the land upon which the cannabis plants are cultivated belongs

to the father of the applicant. However, the Sarpanch has given a

certificate in which it has been mentioned that the land was in

possession of the present applicant. He further submits that an

application has been made by the prosecution to the Tehsildaar to

verify who is in the posession but however tehsildaar has not given

any certificate/document to show that the present applicant is in

possession of said land.

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

6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, considered the

evidence collected, prima facie it appears that resonable ground to

believe that the land does not belong to present applicant and there is

a doubt about the possession of the land, that there is reasonable

ground to believe that the bar U/s. 37 of NDPS Act would not be

operated in the present case. I am inclined to allow this bail

application. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant

is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond in the sum of

-3-

Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

concerned Court for his appearance before that Court as and when

directed. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions :-

(i)that the applicant shall not, directly or

indirectly, make any inducement, threat or

promise to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case so as to d