Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 10]

Chattisgarh High Court

Lakhan Lal vs State Of Chhattisgarh 23 Mcrc/975/2018 ... on 20 April, 2018

                                        1

                                                                          NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             MCRC No. 697 of 2018

   • Sonu Ram S/o Bahurdas Sabarsathi Aged About 48 Years R/o Village
     Chilhati, P.S. Chichgarh, Civil And Revenue District Gondia ( M.H.)

                                                                    ----Applicant

                                    Versus

   • State of Chhattisgarh Through The In Charge P.S. Churiya District
     Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

                                                                ---- Respondent

MCRC No. 862 of 2018 • Lakhan Lal S/o Milan Gangboier, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Chilhati, P.S. Chichgarh, Civil And Revenue District Gondia (M.H.)

---- Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The In Charge P.S. Churiya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent For Applicants : Shri Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent-State : Shri SK Mishra, PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 20/04/2018

1. Both these bail applications are decided together as they are arising out of the same crime number.

2. These are the First Bail Applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested on 09.12.2017 in connection with Crime No.207/2017 registered at 2 Police Station P.S. Churiya, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) NDPS Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 08.12.2017 during the search, two persons were traveling on the motorcycle, when they were intercepted from their possession 4.580 KG cannabis was seized. Thereby the offence has been committed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated as the cannabis was not seized in person from the present applicants. He further submits that the charge-sheet in this case has been filed and no further investigation is necessary and the applicants are in jail since 09.12.2017, therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

6. Considering facts of this case, especially taking into the quantity of the cannabis and also that the applicants are in jail since 09.12.2017, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail.

7. Accordingly, both the bail applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court.

SD/-

Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu