Allowed

Seema Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2022MCRC/2557/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of three bail applications via a common order for the same offense under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. The court granted bail on bonds supported by local sureties, noting the quantity was below commercial limits and trial would be lengthy.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; applicants released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one local surety.

Seema Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 2557 of 2022

¶5

Seema Yadav D/o Ramkishan Yadav, aged about 22 years, R/o Balgi, Bankimongra, district Korba, CG – Present address- Geetanjali City, Sarkanda, PS Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, CG --- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh through SHO Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, CG --- Respondent

¶8

MCRC No. 3583 of 2022

¶9

Nitesh Dodwani S/o Nandlal Dodwani, aged about 27 years, R/o Near Mahrani School, Dayalband, PS Kotwali, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, CG ---- Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh through SHO Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, CG --- Respondent

¶12

MCRC No. 4063 of 2022

¶13

Dharmendra Chouhan,son of Shivraj Singh Chouhan, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Salempur Khutiyanabhag, PS Jasrana, District Firojabad, UP

¶14

Versus

¶15

State of Chhattisgarh through SHO Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, CG --- Respondent

¶16

For Applicants Shri Syed Ishhadil Ali, Shri Pravin Tulsyan, and Shri U.PS.Sahu, Advocates For State - Shri Sameer Uraon, GA

¶17

Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶18

01/08/2022 :

¶19

Since all these three applications u/s 439 CrPC are in respect of the same Crime No. 167/2022 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, they are disposed of by this common order.

¶20

Case of the prosecution in short is that on 2.3.2022 three persons were found in illicit possession of 10 grams of psychotropic substance (MDMA).

¶21

Counsel for the applicant in MCRC No. 2557/2022 submits that the

¶22

¶23

total quantity of MDMA allegedly seized from the possession of this applicant is 01 gram. Counsel for the applicant in MCRC No. 3583/2022 submits that the substance (MDMA) alleged to have been seized by the applicant therein is 02 grams whereas counsel for the applicant in MCRC No. 4063/2022 submits that the contraband allegedly seized by the applicant in that case is 7 grams. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed, that the applicants are in jail since 2.3.2022, that the trial is likely to take time for conclusion, that they are ready and willing to comply with all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail and therefore, they may be released on bail. Counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are ready and willing to furnish local sureties if so directed.

¶24

State counsel however opposes the applications for bail and submits that though if taken individually the contraband seized is less than commercial quantity but it is above the small quantity, and that as one of the accused namely Dharmendra Chouhan belongs to Uttar Pradesh and one Seema Yadav belongs to Korba (CG), the possibility of their running away cannot be ruled out. He further submits that looking to the seriousness of allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled for bail.

¶25

Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, the facts and circumstances of the case, that the quantity allegedly seized comes to be less than commercial quantity, that they are in jail since 2.3.2022 and that the trial may take some time for conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for their appearance before that Court as and when so directed.

¶26

The applicants are directed not to leave Chhattisgarh State without prior permission of the Special Court.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶29

Jyotishi

Seema Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Yadav 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

Vibhash Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Parte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khileshwar @ Sameer Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Das Panika Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhiresh Khaira Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Singh Senger Vs State of Chhattisgarh