NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MCRC No.7894 of 2020

Bheem @ Indrajeet Kaushik S/o Nandkumar Kaushik Aged About 27 Years R/o

Village Dagori, Tahsil And Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,

District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

MCRC No. 8085 of 2020

Saurabh Kumar Thawait @ Ravi S/o Late Shri Chandrika Prasad Aged About 25

Years R/o Village Chhatauna, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

----Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chakarbhata,

Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

---Respondent

For respective Applicants

:

Mr. Lav Sharma and

Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Advocates

For State

:

Mr. K.K. Singh, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Order On Board

11.02.2021

Heard.

1. The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.241 of 2020

registered at Police Station-Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (CG) for the alleged

commission of offence under Section 21 & 22 of the Narcotics Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985').

2. Prosecution case is that the applicant/Saurabh Kumar Thawait @ Ravi was

intercepted on the road on the basis of mukhbir information and from his

possession, commercial quantity of psychotropic substance codeine phosphate

containing syrup bottles were found. When his memorandum was recorded, he

disclosed that quantity of ganja were supplied to him by co-accused Bheem @

Indrajeet Kaushik, which was being transported.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have been

falsely implicated. The provision under Section 41(1) of the Act of 1985 has not

been complied with as the search and seizure has been carried out without

warrant taken from competent authority. It is next submitted that the time at which

Mukhbir panchnama was recorded and thereafter various proceedings on spot

were carried out, renders it wholly improbable that the applicant Saurabh Kumar

Thawait @ Ravi was intercepted at the spot and any seizure was made which

show that all the proceedings including seizure are false and fabricated. He would

next submit that in the notice given to witnesses, place recorded is police station,

it has been later on struck off which renders it highly probable that entire

proceedings are false as they have been prepared only in the police station and

not at the spot. For co-accused Bheem@Indrajeet Kaushik the main argument is

that Bheem @ Indrajeet Kaushik was not found at the spot but he is being

involved only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused as co-accused has

stated that the entire quantity of drugs were supplied to him by the applicant

Bheem @ Indrajeet Kaushik.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits

that due satisfaction of there being no time to take warrant without involving risk of

accused running away has been duly recorded and sent to the higher police

officer. He would next submit that the proceedings have been drawn at the spot in

presence of independent witnesses, therefore, they cannot be doubted. It is next

submitted that as the applicants are involved in transportation and trafficking of

commercial quantity of psychotropic substance, in the absence of there being any

material to record satisfaction in terms of Section 37(1)(b) of the Act of 1985, the

application may be rejected.

5. In the present case, the accused persons are said to be involved in trafficking of

drugs/ psychotropic substance in commercial quantity. The argument with regard

to non-compliance of Section 41(1) of the Act of 1985 cannot be accepted at this

stage, because on records the charge-sheet and case diary show that mukhbir

panchnam