Allowed

Mrs. Sufiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2022MCRC/5548/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court allowed bail in an NDPS Act case where 21kg of Ganja was seized. The court relied on a Supreme Court precedent allowing separate seizure assessment per accused, noting a coordinate bench granted bail in similar circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each subject to conditions.

Mrs. Sufiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 5548 of 2022

¶5

Mrs. Sufiya, W/o Shakir Ali, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Rais Nagar, P.S. Thakur Ganj, District-Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Police Station Tikrapara, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-Applicant

¶9

For Applicant : Shri Pravin Kumar Tulsyan and Shri Karan K. Bahrani, Advocates

¶10

For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶12

05.08.2022

¶13

Heard.

¶14

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.248 of 2022 for the offence punishable under section 20 (B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station- Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.).

¶15

1. As per prosecution story, on 31.03.2022 the police received secret information and acting upon the said information intercepted the present applicant with co-accused near Bhathagaon bus stand carrying contraband Ganja in separate bags. The police seized 11 Kg of Ganja from the present applicant and 10 Kg of Ganja from the co-accused namely Krishna Thakur.

¶16

1. Learned counsel for the applicant made a statement that there are two accused persons, one is present applicant and another one is Krishna Thakur. The co-accused Krishna Thakur has not

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

moved any application before this Court.

¶19

1. Counsel for the applicant submits that the total quantity of contraband seized is 21 Kg but separate seizure was made by the police and from possession of the present applicant 11 Kg contraband Ganja was seized, whereas, from the co-accused Krishna Thakur 10 Kg. contraband Ganja was seized, therefore, quantity seized from both the accused can not be clubbed and it can be taken in account as individual capacity. He relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot V. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4248 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph 8 as under :-

¶20

“8. Although, at first blush, the argument of the learned counsel appeared attractive, on careful appreciation of the facts on record we are satisfied that the High Court judgment is fully justified and needs to be upheld. It is true that the High Court proceeded on the footing that there was a criminal conspiracy between the appellant and the deceased, Danabhai Virabhai Rabari. In our view, however, there was no warrant for this conclusion at all as there is no evidence to suggest that there was any such abetment and/or criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellant and Dananbhai Virabhai Rabari were found together, but individual carrying the recovered substances. Hence, it was not possible for the High Court to take the view that Section 29 was attracted.”

¶21

He further submits that in the FIR Section 29 of NDPS Act has not been added which deals with punishment for abetment and conspiracy. His next contention is that there is no materiel to establish abetment or criminal conspiracy between two accused persons. He places orders of this Court passed in MCRC No. 2877 of 2022, MCRC No. 8315 of 2021, where total quantity of the contraband was more than 20 Kg but the

¶22

Page 3 of 3

¶23

separate seizure was made from accused persons of lesser quantity than commercial quantity and they were granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶24

1. Per contra, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that quantity of the contraband seized from both of the accused, in total, is greater than the commercial quantity, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶25

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot V. State of Gujarat where separate seizure has been taken into account separately. Further, the coordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail on same set of facts in MCRC No. 2877 of 2022 & MCRC No. 8315 of 2021 and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed; the applicant is in jail since 31.03.2022, therefore, without commenting anything on merits the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶26

1. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, she shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-

¶27

(i) she 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;

¶28

(ii) she shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;

¶29

(iii) she shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial; and

¶30

(iv ) she shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶31

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey ) Judge

¶32

Nadim

Mrs. Sufiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Sufiya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omprakash Mehra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonu Lakda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Niranjan Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aasan @ Aasha Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nandkishore Manjhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh