Allowed

Budhkuwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Mar 2021CRMP/280/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a bail application filed by Budhkuwar accused under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. Despite the seized drug quantity exceeding the small category, the court deemed her a fit case for regular bail requiring a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum.

Budhkuwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Misc. Petition No.280 of 2021

¶5

Budhkuwar, wife of Raju Pardhi, aged about 37 years, R/o Village Borsi, Police Chowki Kandarka, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Zila Dandahikari, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner: Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

16/03/2021

¶14

1. On due consideration, the order dated 18-9-2020 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.5567/2020 is hereby recalled and instead thereof an entirely fresh / new order is being passed hereinbelow: -

¶15

2. A case in Crime No.251/2020 has been registered against the petitioner herein at Police Station Berla, Distt. Bemetara, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶16

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 2 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the petitioner which she was possessing without authority of law.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence, she has falsely been implicated in the case, she has been arrested on 3-8-2020 and therefore

¶18

¶19

she may be released on bail. He further submits that the quantity of Ganja seized from the petitioner is more than small quantity.

¶20

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer.

¶21

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶22

7. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence, facts and circumstances of the case, pretrial detention of the petitioner and that the quantity of Ganja seized from the petitioner is slightly more than small quantity, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case in which the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶23

8. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for her appearance as and when directed, the petitioner shall be released on bail.

¶24

9. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶25

10. Copy of order be sent to concerned court by Email / fax.

¶26

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶27

Soma

Budhkuwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhkuwar 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

Narhari Patel Vs Mu.temabai And Ors.

Manohar Lal Vs Anjuman Islamia Rest. Wakf Sanstha

Smt.Sushila Devi Vs Gopal Rao and Ors.

M/s. Sarkar Construction Vs Shri Prabhakar Pandey

Rajeev Verma @ Raju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priyanka Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh