Allowed

Ajay Kumar Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2022MCRC/4499/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants regular bail to the applicant under Section 439 CrPC in a second bail application involving Section 21C NDPS Act charges. The court observed procedural lapses and lack of merit-based opposition by the State.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail with a bond of Rs. 50,000/- and one surety, subject to standard conditions of not fleeing, interfering with witnesses, or appearing in future offences.

Ajay Kumar Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4499 of 2022

¶4

Ajay Kumar Chouhan S/o Ram Nagina Chouhan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Titurdih Nayapara, Near Shahid Bhagat Singh School, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station, City Kotwali, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

--- Respondent

¶9

For Applicant : Mr. CR Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Kunal Das, PL.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶11

02/08/2022

¶12

This is Second bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant. First bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.01.2021 alongwith other coaccused persons namely Yogesh Dewangan & Vishnu Soni.

¶13

Applicant is in jail since 15.08.2020 in connection with Crime No. 211/2020, registered at PS – City Kotwali, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.), for commission of offence punishable under Section 21C of NDPS Act.

¶14

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.08.2020 on the basis of secret information, Police intercepted one car on which applicant alongwith coaccused Yogesh Dewangan & Vishnu Soni were travelling, seized 7 cartons of illicit cough syrup (Rx Chlorphenirmine maleate codeine phospate, Phensirest) each containing 144 bottles. Based upon seizure, aforementioned offence was registered against applicant and other co-accused persons.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. After rejection of first bail application, seizure witnesses namely Gopal Pawar & Jatin Vakde were examined before the trial Court as PW-1 & PW-2 and they have not supported case of prosecution. Deposition sheets are placed on record as Annexure A-4. One of the co-accused Yogesh Dewangan has

¶16

¶17

been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.04.2022 in MCRC No.8741/2021. Applicant is in jail since 15.08.2020, hence, he may also be released on regular bail.

¶18

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of applicant and submits that Illicit cough syrup was seized from conscious possession of applicant, there is ample evidence against him, hence, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegation, submission of counsel for applicant that seizure witnesses were examined before trial Court and they have not supported case of prosecution, the fact that State Counsel could not distinguish the case of present applicant with coaccused Yogesh Dewang who was granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, period of detention of applicant ie since 15.08.2020, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application.

¶21

Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that applicant shall be released on regular bail, on his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on the conditions that-

¶22

a) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court.

¶23

b) Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶24

c) Applicant shall appear before trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶25

d) If applicant is found involved in similar offence in the future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of Bail. Certified copy as per rules.

¶26

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶27

J/-

Ajay Kumar Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Chouhan 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

Surtiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nand Kishor Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Shabbir Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kunal Tekam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh