Dismissed

Jalsingh Sori and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2020MCRC/4012/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 20-B NDPS Act. The bail application was dismissed as not the fit case for release, noting the seriousness of the offence. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the case within two months of resuming work.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial court directed to dispose of the case within two months of resuming normal court work.

Jalsingh Sori and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 4012 of 2020

¶5

Jalsingh Sori S/o Naryan Sori Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Solupara Badesatti House No. 72, Phoolbagdi, Outpost Phoolbagdi Police StationSukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Tomeshwar Mandavi S/o Vishnuram Mandavi Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kokdi, P.S. Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station- Chilphi, District- Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh

¶10

...…Non-applicant

¶11

For the Applicant : Shri Wasim Miyan, Adv. For Non Applicant : Shri Dinesh Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Adv.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order on Board 11-8-2020

¶13

This is 2nd bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicants before this Court. Their no other bail application is pending before any other Court.

¶14

Earlier, the first bail application of the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 8-1-2019 passed in MCRC No. 9364/2018.

¶15

The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 26/2018 registered in police station Chilphi, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha) (CG) for offence punishable under Section 20-B of the NDPS Act.

¶16

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11-10-2018 in front of the barrier of Police Station Chilphi, Sub Inspector Vidyanand Bhagat seized 35 kg Cannabis from accused No. 1 Jal Singh Sori and 14 Kg Cannabis from accused No. 2 Tomeshwar Mandavi.

¶17

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are in jail since 11-10-2018, all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and

¶18

¶19

the case is fixed for accused statement. Due to Covid 19, the proceedings of the Trial Court are suspended, hence the applicants may be released on bail.

¶20

On the other hand, counsel for the State opposed the bail application. He submitted that as per police case diary, there is no criminal antecedent of the applicants.

¶21

This is true that period of detention of the accused and delay in trial are the material factors for disposal of bail application of accused but it is also equally true that seriousness of the offence and impact of grant of bail to the accused on society are more important and material factors for disposal of the bail application filed by the accused.

¶22

As per applicants' case, the case is already fixed for accused statement and after resuming the normal situation the court will record the accused statement and proceed further.

¶23

In the present scenario, the trial Court cannot be held responsible for delay in trial.

¶24

Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that it is not a fit case where the applicants may be released on bail in 2nd round of litigation.

¶25

Consequently, this 2nd bail application is rejected.

¶26

However the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as soon as possible preferably within a period of 2 months from resuming the normal court work.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge

¶29

Pathak

¶30

¶31

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Sheet

¶32

CRMP No. 998/2020

¶33

Jalsingh Sori and another

¶34

-versus-

¶35

State of Chhattisgarh

¶36

20-8-2020	MCRC No. 4012/2020was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11- 8-2020 but inadvertently, wrong case number has been typed in the order and in place of 'MCRC No. 4012 of 2020' the case number 'MCRC No. 4094 of 2020” has been typed in the order. Therefore this Cr.M.P. has been registered. Considering the above facts, this Cr.M.P. is disposed of with a direction that the order dated 11-8-2020 passed in MCRC No. 4012 of 2020 bearing wrong case number be deleted from the website of the High Court and order bearing correct case number be uploaded. A copy of this order sheet be also supplied along with certified copy of the order dated 11-8-2020 passed in MCRC No. 4012/2020.
	Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge

20-8-2020

MCRC No. 4012/2020was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11-
8-2020 but inadvertently, wrong case number has been typed in the order
and in place of 'MCRC No. 4012 of 2020' the case number 'MCRC No. 4094
of 2020” has been typed in the order. Therefore this Cr.M.P. has been
registered.
Considering the above facts, this Cr.M.P. is disposed of with a direction
that the order dated 11-8-2020 passed in MCRC No. 4012 of 2020 bearing
wrong case number be deleted from the website of the High Court and order
bearing correct case number be uploaded. A copy of this order sheet be also
supplied along with certified copy of the order dated 11-8-2020 passed in
MCRC No. 4012/2020.

Sd/-
(Sharad Kumar Gupta)
Judge

¶37

Pathak

Jalsingh Sori and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalsingh Sori and Anr. 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

Banti @ Sagar Rajak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Sonkar Vs Narendra Kumar Sonkar

Ekam Patel, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Umar Imam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh