Fourth bail application dismissed. High Court held trial is not standstill despite detention of over 2.5 years. Directed trial court to expedite proceedings again.
Fourth bail application dismissed; trial court directed to expedite trial further.
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, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3102 of 2023
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Shri Vikash Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ku. Richa Shukla, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board
20.6.2023
1. This is fourth bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 25.9.2020 in connection with Crime No.180/2020 registered at Police Station Komakhan. Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (as per charge sheet). Earlier three bail applications, i.e. MCRC No.102/2021, MCRC No. 694/2022 & MCRC No.5462/2022 were withdrawn with liberty vide orders dated 10.5.2021, 18.02.2022 & 11.11.2022 respectively. While permitting to withdraw the third bail application, i.e. MCRC No.5462/2022, this Court had directed the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.
2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 25.9.2020, on the basis of secret information, police of Police Station Komakhan, Distt. Mahasamund intercepted truck bearing registration No.RJ 02 GA 5686, which was driven by present applicant Khalid Khan and co-accused Sakir Hussain was also sitting in the said truck. During search on the said vehicle, the police seized 810 Kg contraband substance ganja, which was kept in the said truck in 26 bags. Aforesaid contraband substance was seized by the police from the joint possession of both the accused. Based on the above facts, present crime was registered against them and after investigation,
2
charge sheet was filed on 15.12.2020 against both the accused for the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.9.2020, charge sheet was filed on 15.12.2020, despite that till date only 05 witnesses including both the search and seizure witnesses have been examined. It is further submitted that third bail application of the applicant was withdrawn on 11.11.2022 and till that date only three witnesses were examined, hence, this Court directed the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible considering the detention period of the applicant. After 11.11.2022, about 07 months have been passed but only two witnesses have been examined thereafter, whereas the applicant is languishing in jail for more than 2 ½ years. He would further submit that in many cases pertaining to commercial quantity, this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court have granted bail to the accused persons. In this regard he referred the cases of Shreshmani Patel vs. The State of Chhattisgarh [Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.11401/2022, order dated 20.4.2023] and Allepu Ramesh vs. The State of Chhattisgarh [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2500/2023].
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. She would submit that while hearing the third bail application on 11.11.2022, this Court had permitted the applicant to withdraw the bail application with direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial. Thereafter only 02 witnesses have been examined, but perusal of the certified copy of the order of the Special Court shows that efforts are being made to expedite the trial, hence, it cannot be said that progress in trial is standstill. She would further submit that in the present case quantity of seized contraband substance from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused is 810 Kg, whereas in the cases referred by learned counsel for the applicant, the quantity is much less. Hence, bail application of applicant may be rejected.
3
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and material available on record.
6. Facts of the case show that the alleged contraband substance seized from the joint possession of the applicant and coaccused is 810 Kg and the same was carrying by them in a truck. The manner in which such huge quantity of cannabis was being transported shows the modus operandi of the applicant and coaccused. Certified copy of the order sheets shows that the learned Special Court is fixing the case for evidence regularly and after rejection of the third bail application, two more witnesses have been examined and other important witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial is standstill. Hence, I do not feel inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the fourth bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC is dismissed.
7. However, the learned trial Court is again directed to expedite the trial and special efforts be made to conclude the trial as early as possible, as the applicant is in jail for more than 2 ½ years.
8. If the trial is not concluded within reasonable period and undue delay is occurred, then the applicant may revive his prayer.
Certified copy as per rules.
SD/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE
Bini
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted despite previous directions to expedite the trial in a high quantity NDPS case.
Whether the delay in trial justifies granting bail after earlier bail applications were withdrawn.
If bail is refused, whether the trial court must be directed to expedite the proceedings further.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Khalid Khan
State Of Chhattisgarh
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
