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

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
SADDAM HUSSAIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRC 9758/2022



Advocates:
['JAINENDRA KUMAR SHASTRI', '', 'BRAJENDRA SINGH', 'A G']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MCRC No. 9758 of 2022

Saddam Hussain, son of Mo. Shakur Mohammad, aged about 30 years, R/o

village Datima, Police Chowki Karanji, Police Station Vishrampur, District

Surajpur, CG

--- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Police Station – Jainagar, District

Surajpur, CG.

--- Respondent

For Applicant

-

Shri Shyamsundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate on

behalf of Shri J.K. Shashtri, Advocate

For State

-

Shri Kasif Shakeel, Dy. AG

Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice

Sachin Singh Rajput

14

/12/2022

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. 173/2022 registered at Police Station Jainagar, District Sura-

jpur, CG for the offence punishable under Section 21 (C) of the NDPS Act.

2.

Case of the prosecution in short is that on 16.6.2022 the police of

Police station Jainagar got information that two persons were waiting for the

customers of illegal drugs, and acting upon which it grabbed the applicant

and seized the drugs i.e. 36 pieces of medicine Escuf cough syrup and 11

pieces of Rax Cough Syrup (total 47 pieces) from his possession.

3.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the volume of contraband in

each bottle has not been mentioned in the seizure memo, and therefore, as

the quantity of the contraband being the commercial quantity is not

established, the bar contained in section 37 of the Act is not attracted to the

case in hand. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 16.6.2022 and the

trial may take some time for conclusion, therefore, the applicant may be

released on bail.

2

4.

State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the application for bail and

submits that the total 47 bottles of contraband containing codene – which

comes within the commercial quantity, was seized from the applicant, bar

contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted, therefore,

he is not entitled for bail.

5.

Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, the

facts and circumstances of the case, the quantity of the contraband allegedly

seized, and keeping in mind the decisions of the Apex Court in the matters of

State of Kerala v. Rajesh reported in (2020) 12 SCC 122 and Narcotics

Control Bureau v. Mohit Agrawal reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 891 ,

this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to release the applicant on

bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

Judge

Jyotishi

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