Dismissed¶¶34

Sumit Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Feb 2025MCRC/7164/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused; second bail application under S. 483 BNSS 2023; offences under Sections 22 and 27 NDPS Act; Crime No. 60 of 2024, P.S. Rajhara, District Balod; applicants Sumit Soni and Manish Kumar Nirmalkar; recovery of Alprazolam tablets (288 g) and Spas-Trancan Plus capsules (total 1756.8 g, value Rs. 23,352); first bail withdrawn 24-7-2024 with liberty; gravity of offence; mental disorder defence left to trial Court; co-applicant's MCRC No. 7710 of 2024 dismissed as withdrawn; decided 17/02/2025 by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas; Neutral citation 2025:CGHC:8191.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted. MCRC No. 7164 of 2024 rejected; MCRC No. 7710 of 2024 permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn; applicant at liberty to urge all defences, including the mental disorder ground, before the learned trial Court.

Sumit Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant (Sumit Soni) in MCRC No. 7164 of 2024, arrested for offences punishable under Sections 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act in Crime No. 60 of 2024, should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶¶26

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the offence, it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail; MCRC No. 7164 of 2024 is rejected.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

Permission granted to the applicant in MCRC No. 7710 of 2024 to withdraw his bail petition, which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

The applicant remains at liberty to take all defences permissible under the law, including the ground that he is suffering from mental disorder, before the learned trial Court.obiter¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.), Order dated 17/02/2025 [2025:CGHC:8191, NAFR]: Common order on two bail applications arising out of Crime No. 60 of 2024, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, for offences punishable under Sections 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act. Sumit Soni's second regular bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was rejected: prosecution case alleges recovery from him of Alprazolam Tablets I.P. 0.50 mg (24 tablets, 288 g) and Spas-Trancan Plus capsules (1440 capsules, 884 g), and from co-accused Manish Kumar Nirmalkar of 1008 Spas-Trancan Plus capsules (604.8 g; total 1756.8 g, stated value Rs. 23,352/-). His first bail application had been withdrawn on 24-7-2024 with liberty to revive after examination of some material witnesses. The Court, weighing the gravity of the offence, held it not a fit case for enlargement on bail, while reserving liberty to the applicant to urge all defences permissible under law, including the ground of mental disorder, before the learned trial Court. Co-applicant Manish Kumar Nirmalkar's MCRC No. 7710 of 2024 was permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn.

2025:CGHC:8191

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 7164 of 2024

¶6

Sumit Soni S/o Ashok Soni Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. - 7, Teachers Colony, Rajhara P.S. - Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶10

--- Respondent.

¶11

MCRC No. 7710 of 2024

¶12

Manish Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Late Lakhan Nirmalkar Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Ward No. 7 Teacher Colony, Rajhara, Police Station- Rajhara, District- Balod (C.G.), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶13

--- Applicant.

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶16

--- Respondent

¶17

¶18

For applicant in MCRC No 7164 of 2024 :	Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate.
For applicant in MCRC No 7710 :	Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh,
of 2024	Advocate.
For State	Mr. Kishanlal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

¶19

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

17/02/2025

¶22

Since both the bail petitions arise out of same Crime No. 60 of 2024, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶23

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in MCRC No. 7710 of 2024 (Manish Kumar Nirmalkar ) would submit that he seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this bail petition, at this stage.

¶24

Permission is granted

¶25

Accordingly, MCRC No. 7710 of 2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶26

So far as MCRC No 7164 of 2024 is concerned, the applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 27-2-2024 in connection with Crime No 60 of 2024 registered at Police Station – Rajhara for the offence punishable under Sections 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act. First bail application of the applicant was withdrawn with liberty to revive the same after some material witnesses are examined, vide order dated 24-7-2024.

¶27

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27-2-2024 on secret information received by the Police that two persons namely Sumit Soni resident of Rajhara Ward No. 07 Teacher Colony s/o. Ashok Soni, age 25

¶28

¶29

years Manish Kumar Nirmalkar, father, late Lakhan Lal Nirmalkar age 35 years Sakin Ward or 07 Teacher Colony Rajhara Mashruka were carrying and on that basis the Police searched the applicants and on search, Narcotic capsule filled in four boxes from Sumeet Soni ALPRAZOLAM TABLETS I.P. 0.50 MG in which weight of one tablet is 0.12 gm Full tablet 24, total weight 288 grams and filled in 10 box SPAS-TRANCAN PLUS capsules Total 10 packets in each strip 24 nos capsules Total 1440 capsules Weight of one capsule 0.6gm full weight 884 gm and 12. From Manish Kumar Nirmalkar SPAS-TRANCAN PLUS capsules filled in 07 boxes in each strip 24 Nos Capsules Total 1008 capsules Weight of one capsule 0.6gm Total weight of capsules 604.8 gm Total weight 1756.8gm total value of Rs.Rs.23,352/- were found from the applicant and other co-accused.

¶30

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that the Police have seized the drug in open place and in concise possession of the applicant and there is no direct evidence available to prosecution to indulge the applicant in the crime. He would further submit that out of 15 witnesses only five witnesses have been examined, the applicant is in jail since 27-2-2024 and suffers from mental disorderness and trial is likely to take sometime, therefore, the applicant may be granted bail.

¶31

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the bail application of the applicant would submit that the applicant along with other co-accused were involved in commission of transaction of contraband drugs and they were carrying the aforesaid drugs which are harmful to the society and no sufficient material has been placed on record to prove that he has authority to transport the same. He would further submit that the applicant is not suffering from mental disorderness and looking to the gravity of the ofence he would pray for rejection of the bail petition.

¶32

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶34

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the gravity of the offence, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the instant MCRC No.7164 of 2024 is rejected. However, the applicant is at liberty to take all his defence permissible under the law including the ground that the applicant is suffering from mental disorderness before the learned trial Court.

¶35

RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU

¶36

Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.02.18 17:35:57 +0530

¶37

Certified copy as per rules.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE

¶40

Raju

Sumit Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Co-Operative Marketing Society Maryadit Vs Board of Revenue

Ram Prasad Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rashmita Patel Vs Vivekanand Patel

Smt. Sheela Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Milibai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akhilesh Kumar Bharadwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh