Javed Khan @ Jabbir Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023. His first bail application (MCRC No.2137/2023) was rejected vide order dated 17.7.2023 by the coordinate Bench on merits.

¶17

2

¶18

The applicant has been arrested on 19.10.2022 in connection with Crime No.618/2022 registered at Police Station – Mandir Hasoud, Distt. Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short “NDPS Act”).

¶19

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant was found in illicit possession of 1200 Nitrazepam Tablets, total weight 0.858 gm along with wrapper. Hence the aforesaid offence has been registered against him and other two co-accused namely Niranjan Tandi @ Diwakar Pandit and Rajesh Sethi. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Special Court, NDPS, Raipur.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this crime. No seizure has been effected from him. He further submits that as per seizure memo filed by the police, total weight of alleged Nitrazepam tablets has been mentioned as 0.858 gm along with its wrapper and no separate weight of the tablets has been mentioned. Therefore, it cannot be said that the alleged contraband substance was either commercial quantity or intermediate quantity or small quantity. He submits that out of three accused persons, two namely Niranjan Tandi @ Diwakar Pandit and Rajesh Sethi have been granted bail by this Court; criminal case is pending consideration for the last more than three years; out of 16 witnesses only 06 witnesses have been

¶21

3

¶22

examined so far and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time. Hence he prays for release of the applicant on bail.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel opposing the bail application would submit that though six witnesses have been examined but the material witnesses are yet to be examined. However, he submits that weight of the tablets without wrapper has not been mentioned in the charge sheet. He further submits that as per information received from Police Station – Jok, Distt. Nuwapada (Odisha), there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant. Lastly, he submits that as the trial is in progress, the instant bail application may be rejected.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶25

Having considered the contention put forth by learned counsel for the parties, the fact that about three years have elapsed but out of 16 witnesses, till date only 06 witnesses have been examined; the applicant is in jail for the last more than three years; no criminal antecedent is shown against him; the other two co-accused namely Niranjan Tandi @ Diwakar Pandit and Rajesh Sethi have been granted bail by this Court; without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case to release the applicant on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant –

¶27

4

¶28

Javed Khan @ Jabbir involved in Crime No.618/2022 registered at Police Station – Mandir Hasoud, Distt. Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 22(C) and 29 of NDPS Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1 Lakh with two local sureties, each of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions: -

¶29

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶30

(ii) He 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.

¶31

(iii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶32

iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶33

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date

¶34

5

¶35

fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶36

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶37

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶38

Sd/

¶39

Digitally signed by MOHD MOHDAKHTAR AKHTAR KHAN KHAN Date:2026.07.22 18:02:09 +0530

¶40

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶41

Judge

¶42

Khan

Javed Khan @ Jabbir v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Khan @ Jabbir 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

Farhana Bi Vs Israr Mohammad

Mrs. Sunita Yadav Vs Mrs. Panchbati Bai Yadav

Bhagirathi Tamrakar Vs Bhi. Maheshwar Rao

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mayank Pratap Sahu

Smt. Laxmi Rao Dongre Vs Paras Ramtekey

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Ramrijhawan Das