Dismissed

Shri Diwan Singh Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Dec 2020MCRC/840/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order refusing interim bail to an applicant arrested for a narcotics offence under the NDPS Act. The High Court rejected the claim that mandatory Section 42 provisions were not complied with based on the case diary and held the applicant not entitled to bail as reasonable grounds to believe his innocence could not be recorded.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act invoked.

Shri Diwan Singh Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 840 of 2020

¶5

Shri Diwan Singh Pal S/o Late Shri Maharaj Singh Pal Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village Pargehna, Police Station Amayan, And Tahsil Gohad And District - Bhind Madhya Pradesh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Shri Ashok Kumar Komra, Advocate For State : Shri K.K.Singh, Govt. Adv.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Order On Board

08/12/2020

Heard.

The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.93/2019 registered at Police Station – Keshkal, District – Kondagaon (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under Section 20 (B) (ii-C) of NDPS Act.

¶16

Prosecution case is that on receipt of mukhbir information, when the vehicle driven by one of the accused was intercepted, from the said vehicle more than 100 kgs of ganja was recovered. When the applicant and other accused were issued notices to produce valid authority for possession, no documentary evidence was produced.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He would submit that the applicant had come as a traveler from the State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Chhattisgarh along with friends and even if some quantity of ganja is said to have been recovered, it cannot be said to be a case of conscious possession. He submits that the entire proceedings of interception and recovery of ganja from the vehicle in which, the applicant is alleged to have transported, are highly doubtful because the mandatory provisions under Section 42 of NDPS Act have not been followed. He submits that all other proceedings have not been drawn strictly in accordance with the NDPS Act and therefore, prosecution case is highly doubtful. He submits that one of the

¶18

¶19

co-accused – Amu Singh has been granted bail by this Court in MCrC No.201/20 vide order dated 14/02/2020. Therefore, the applicant may also be granted bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes bail application and submits that receipt of mukhbir information was duly recorded in writing in rojnamcha sanha and same information was separately sent to the SDO, Police and receipt was obtained. The police authority proceeded to the spot and the same vehicle in which, the ganja was being transported was intercepted. Huge quantity of more than 100 kgs of ganja was found in the vehicle. The entire proceedings have been drawn strictly in accordance with the provisions of NDPS Act.

¶21

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

¶22

The allegation is of recovery of huge quantity of ganja from the vehicle in which the applicant was going along with other accused. Though it has been argued that proceedings of Section 42 of NDPS Act is not complied with, prima facie from the case diary, it is apparent that receipt of mukhbir information was recorded in rojnamcha sanha and same details were given to the SDO, Police, Keshkal which was received in the same office on the same date. The vehicle was intercepted on road. Proceedings relating to search of the police team and its vehicle were drawn. Police called witnesses and thereafter, vehicle was searched in which ganja was found. The applicant and coaccused were required to show authority for possession which they failed. Thereafter, all the necessary proceedings with regard to physical verification of weighing machine, weighment, drawal of samples was drawn and the accused were sent to police station and FIR was registered and the entire quantity of ganja was kept in safe custody of Malkhana In-charge. Subsequently, under the orders of SDM, the entire quantity was produced before the Executive Magistrate and inventory was also prepared. Learned State counsel would submit that the bail application of co-accused has also been rejected in MCrC No.1692/20 decided on 10/06/2020 and other accused's bail application was dismissed as withdrawn in MCrC No.3325/2020 vide order dated 28/09/2020. Case of the applicant cannot be treated at par in which, bail has been granted to other co-accused – Amu Singh. Therefore, in view of above, this Court is unable to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of commission of offence alleged against him. Accordingly, in view of provisions contained in Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted and the application has to be rejected and is, accordingly rejected.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

( Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ) Judge

¶25

Deepti

Shri Diwan Singh Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Diwan Singh Pal 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

Sheik Yarnaj @ Shadab Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Banti Singhania @ Rajesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Usha Mandal & Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Umesh Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Seikh Saharukh Vs State of Chhattisgarh