Dismissed

Bablu Rajak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2020MCRC/1331/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by Bablu Rajak accused of committing an offence under Section 20(B) NDPS Act involving 19.50 Kg of ganja. The Court held the case quantity was near commercial and rejected bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected; applicant not enlarged on regular bail.

Bablu Rajak Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C.No.1331 of 2020

¶5

Bablu Rajak S/o Kailash Chand Rajak Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 20 Vishwakarma Colony Bypass Road Karod Bhopal, M.P.

¶6

---- Applicant Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Tongpal District - Sukma Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---Non-applicant

¶9

For Applicant	: Shri Vikas Shrivastava, Advocates
For Non-applicant	: Ku. Veena Nair, Dy. Advocate General

¶10

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

10.8.2020.

¶13

Proceedings of this matter have been taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶14

The accused/applicant has moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for release of him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 30 of 2019 registered at Police Station Tongpal Distt. Sukma (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, 19.50 Kg of ganja was

¶16

¶17

recovered from the possession of the present applicant along with coaccused and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has

¶19

not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in crime in question. He is in jail since 26.7.2019 and trial is likely to take time for its conclusion. He further submits that provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

¶21

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

¶22

Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, pre-trial detention of the applicant and considering that quantity of narcotic drugs recovered from the applicant i.e. 19.50 Kg ganja, which is slightly less than commercial quantity, this Court is of the opinion that present is not a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the

¶24

Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE

¶27

Bini

Bablu Rajak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Rajak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajamma and Others Vs M/S. Raisons Engineers andCONTRACTORS

Smt. Prembati Goel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Satnam Singh Vs Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited

Sanjeev Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rupchand and Others Vs Benu Bai and Others

Chudamani Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh