Allowed

Ramshakha Vishvakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Nov 2022MCRC/9138/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC for applicants charged with Narcotic Drugs offences. Holding that Section 37 NDPS Act is not a bar given the specific facts and cited Supreme Court precedent, the court directed release on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Applicants directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with one local surety.

Ramshakha Vishvakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 9138 of 2022

¶5

1. Ramshakha Vishvakarma S/o Lt. Ramkhilawan Vishvakarma Aged About 47 Years At- Semardaha, Police Station Bahilpurva,, District : Chitrakut, Uttar Pradesh

¶6

1. Yogendra Kumar Sen S/o Shankar Dayal Sen Aged About 24 Years AtSemardaha, Police Station Bahilpurva, District : Chitrakut, Uttar Pradesh ---- Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO P/s City Kotwali, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Non-Applicant

¶10

For the Applicants : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board

¶12

17.11.2022

¶13

The applicants have preferred the first bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as they are in jail since 06.08.2022 in connection with Crime No.234/2022 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act.

¶14

The case of prosecution in brief, is that on the basis of an information received from an informant Police has seized 4.300 kg of contraband Ganja from possession of applicant No.1 and 4.600 kg of contraband Ganja from applicant No.2. Thereafter, Police has registered an FIR against the present applicants.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that there are two accused persons charged for the said offence, in the instant case from applicant No.1 4.300 kg and from applicant No.2 4.600kgs of cannabis (Ganja) was recovered from separate seizure memo the quantity of cannabis so seized is less than commercial quantity. He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005 (7) SCC 550, there is no previous criminal antecedents of the present applicants, trial is not concluded as yet, charge-sheet has been filed, they are in jail since 06.08.2022, therefore, they may be released on bail. He also submits that the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act has been satisfied and therefore there is no bar to this Court in granting bail to the applicants.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail

¶17

¶18

application and submits that the separate seizure memo was prepared and from applicant No.1 4.300 kg and from applicant No.2 4.600kgs of cannabis (Ganja) contraband was seized. However, looking to the quantity adding from other co-accused recovered the quantity is less than commercial quantity. He further submits that in the event of bail, local surety may be asked for and they may be restrained from leaving the State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of trial Court because they belong to Chitrakut (Uttar Pradesh) for which counsel for the applicants does not object.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the separate seizure of 4.300 kg and 4.600 kg of cannabis (Ganja) was made from present applicants, there is no previous criminal antecedent of the present applicants, detention period, charge-sheet has been filed and trial may take some time and also in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot (Supra), Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not come as a bar, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicants is allowed and it is directed that applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said trial Court, till disposal of the trial.

¶22

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court will decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. It is also made clear that the State is at liberty to move an application regarding cancellation of bail of the applicants in the event of applicants involving themselves in similar offence in future. It is also made clear that applicants shall not leave the State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶23

Certified copy as per rules.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶27

Judge

¶28

parul

Ramshakha Vishvakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramshakha Vishvakarma 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

Mayank Raj Painkra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Siddhnath @ Siddhuram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Smt. Laxmi Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amrik Singh Kalda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumhar @ Chudamani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pravesh Dixit Vs State of Chhattisgarh