Dismissed

Shamshad Ahmad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2020MCRC/3563/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the applicant's fourth bail application in a narcotics case. The court held that the seriousness of the offence and impact on society outweighed the delay, noting that hostile witnesses do not justify bail. However, the trial was directed to conclude within three months.

What did the court decide?

Fourth bail application rejected; trial directed to conclude within three months.

Shamshad Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 3563 of 2020

¶5

Shamshad Ahmad, son of Mustaque Ahmad, aged about 30 years, Occupation Vehicle Mechanic, R/o Rasulpur, P.S. and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG).

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG).

¶9

---- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. D.K. Tiwari, Dy.G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board

¶12

05.08.2020

¶13

This is the fourth bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant before this Court.

¶14

Perused the case diary provided by the counsel for the State in connection with Crime No.281/2019 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja for the offence punishable under Section 21(C) of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶15

The first, second and third bail applications of the applicant were rejected on merits by this Court vide orders dated 29.08.2019, 22.10.2019 and 16.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4396/2019, M.Cr.C. No.6640/2019 and M.Cr.C. No.144/2020 respectively considering prima facie case against him.

¶16

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.05.2019 Probationer Deputy Superintendent of Police Harish Patil posted at Police Station Ambikapur received a secrete information from informant. After completing some formalities, he seized 44 numbers bottles of RC Cough Syrup each 100 ml, 32 numbers of bottles Elturex-T cough syrup each 100 ml, 44 numbers of bottles Phencyrex Syrup each 100 ml, total numbers of bottle is 120. Total quantity of syrup as 12 liters equal near about 12 kg. In each bottle RC cough syrup and Elturex-T cough syrup codeine Phosphate IP 10 mg was found. In each bottle of Phencyrex cough syrup Chlorpheniramine Maleate IP 4 mg was found.

¶17

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in jail since 16.05.2019. Out of 15 prosecution witnesses, 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and numbers of

¶18

¶19

them turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The applicant is a sole bread earner of his family. He has not committed any rare offence which is punishable with life imprisonment, hence the applicant may be released on bail.

¶20

On the other hand, counsel for the State opposed the bail application. However, he submitted that there is no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant as per police case diary.

¶21

This is well settled legal principle that the detention period of accused and delay in trial are considerable factor for disposal of the bail application, but it is also true that seriousness of the offence and impact of granting bail to the applicant on society are more material and important factors, which cannot be overlooked.

¶22

This is also well settled legal principle that while dealing with the bail application, the Court can neither scrutinize the evidence nor appreciate the evidence. Only the trial Court is competent to do so at the time of appreciation of the evidence. This is also well settled legal principle that the Court cannot touch the merit and demerit of the case. 9. Turning hostile of some witnesses is itself not a sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶23

Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that it is not a fit case where the applicant may be released on bail in the fourth round of litigation. Consequently, his fourth bail application is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the case preferably within a period of three months from the resuming regular work of the Court.

¶24

Certified copy as per rules.

¶25

SD/-

¶26

(Sharad Kumar Gupta) JUDGE

¶27

L/-

Shamshad Ahmad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshad Ahmad 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

Neelkanth Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gajju @ Gajanand Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chukeshwar @ Chutu Gayakwaad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prabhu Kumar Kashyap Vs Dr. Asha Sahgel

Manoj Markam @ Mannu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashish Jhankar Vs State of Chhattisgarh