The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the applicant's bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a NDPS case involving ganja seizure, holding that the trial is not complete as the Investigating Officer has not been examined.
Bail application under Section 439 CrPC rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 968 of 2021
Arun Kumar S/o Madan Singh, Aged about 20 years,
R/o Village Gotahaar, Police Station Shivsagar,
Distt. Rohtas, Bihar.
---Applicant (in jail)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House
Officer, Police Station- Duldula, Distt. Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh.
--- Non-applicant/State
For Applicant :-Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For State :-Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board
05/03/2021
1.This is the second bail application filed by the
application for grant of regular bail in connection
with Crime No. 60/2019, registered at Police
Station - Duldula, District Jashpur (CG), for
offence punishable under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act.
2.The first bail application filed by the applicant
was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
06/10/2020 passed by this Court.
2
3. Case of prosecution in brief is that 145.500 kgs of ganja was seized from the possession of the present applicant.
4.Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the
applicant, would submit that after the rejection of
the first bail application, three witnesses namely
Nandkishore Gupta, Rajkishore Gupta and Bhuneshwar
Yadav have been examined and they have turned
hostile and even after examination nothing has been
said to prove the case of the prosecution qua the
seizure and panchnama, therefore, it is a clear
case of non-compliance of Sections 50 and 57 of
NDPS Act and since the applicant is in jail since
29/08/2019, he may be released on bail.
5.Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel, would
submit that though prosecution witnesses have been
examined and they have turned hostile but the
Investigating Officer is yet to be examined,
therefore, at this stage, it cannot be held that
there is violation of Sections 50 and 57 of NDPS
Act.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the records.
3
7. True it is that three witnesses namely Nandkishore Gupta, Rajkishore Gupta and Bhuneshwar Yadav have been examined who are seizure witnesses and they have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution, but still the Investigating Officer and other witnesses have yet to be examined, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be held that there is violation of Sections 50 and 57 of NDPS Act. I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is rejected.
9. Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
Harneet
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC considering hostile witnesses but incomplete inquiry.
Whether non-compliance of Sections 50 and 57 NDPS Act can be inferred before examination of Investigating Officer.
If the case is fit for release of the applicant on bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Arun Kumar
State Of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court