Chattisgarh High Court
Kumarmani Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 October, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 6724 of 2023
Kumarmani Yadav S/o Udhobo Yadav, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Diyagarh, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh).
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Lailunga Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh).
---- Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate.
For State/Non-Applicant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer.
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J
Order On Board
19.10.2023
1) This is the second bail application filed by the Applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 05.04.2022 (owing to inadvertence it was mentioned in the application as 04/04/2022) in connection with the Crime No. 72/2022, registered at Police Station Lailunga Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short the "NDPS Act"). The first bail application was dismissed in default on 15/05/2023 in MCRC No. 10114 of 2022.
2) Case of the prosecution is that on 05.04.2022, a secret information was received by the concerned Police Station that the 2 applicant is carrying contraband articles (Codeine Corex Syrup) illegally in his bag and based upon the said information, the search was made, whereby 14 nag of said contraband articles was recovered from his possession and accordingly, the offence mentioned hereinabove has been registered against the applicant while arresting him on 05/04/2022 in connection with Crime No. 72/2022.
3) Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in connection with the aforesaid crime. It is contended further that the attesting witnesses of the alleged seizure memo, who were examined, have not supported the prosecution story and, therefore, the applicant, who is in jail since 05/04/2022, be enlarged on bail.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/Non-
Applicant, while opposing the said application submits that the offence as committed by the applicant is serious in nature and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire case diary carefully.
6) Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the attesting witnesses of the alleged seizure memo have already been examined and that by considering further the detention period of the Applicant, who is in jail for over more than one and half years, I am, therefore, inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, without commenting anything on merits of 3 the case.
7) The application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the Applicant is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith one local surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, on the following terms and conditions:-
i) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court;
ii) he shall not act in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
iii) he shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court, till the disposal of the trial.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Chandrakant/Prashant