Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Shreyansh Jhabak vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 September, 2021

Bench: Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari

     ITEM NO.26                    Court 8 (Video Conferencing)           SECTION II-C

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)                  No(s).    5458/2021

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-01-2021
     in MCRC No. 179/2021 passed by the High Court Of Chhatisgarh At
     Bilaspur)

     SHREYANSH JHABAK                                                   Petitioner(s)

                                                     VERSUS

     THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                                          Respondent(s)

     (FOR ADMISSION and I.R.
      IA No. 106081/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
      IA No. 89465/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
     JUDGMENT

IA No. 96316/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 89466/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 96315/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 89467/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 20-09-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Faisal Rizvi, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Thourani, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Ms. Ankita Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Akshat Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Lakshay Mehta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Signature Not Verified Heard learned counsel for the parties.

SUNIL KUMAR Date: 2021.09.22 16:18:48 IST Reason: This special leave petition is against a common judgment and order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in  2 MCRC No. 179 of 2021 whereby the High Court has been pleased to reject the application of the petitioner for regular bail.

On or about 30.09.2020, the petitioner was arrested in connection with an FIR bearing No.255 of 2020 filed in the City Kotwali, Police Station, District Raipur for offences punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). On 21.10.2020, while the petitioner was in custody in connection with FIR No. 255 of 2020, FIR No. 232 of 2020 came to be registered in the Azad Chowk Police Station for offences punishable under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act.

No recovery has been made from the the petitioner. The petitioner has been implicated on the basis of statements made by a co-accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is apparently no other material against him. Investigation was completed in December, 2020 and the final report has been filed. A co-accused has also been enlarged on bail.

The High Court held :

“11. In Cr.No. 255/2020 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, commercial quantity of psychotropic substance cotaine & MDMA has been recovered from the accused persons. The present applicants are accused in the said crime also. In a bunch of cases bearing M.Cr.C.Nos.7850 of 2020 and other connected matters today this Court has dismissed bail applications of the applicants therein including the present applicants shreyansh Jhabak & Ashish Joshi. It is, thus, clear that the applicants are habitual in committing offence under the Act, therefore3, they are not entitled to be released on bail.

12. It is also to be seen that the Delhi High  3 Court In Joyee Koroung v. Narcotics Control Bureau (Bail Appln. 1086 of 2018 (decided on 2-6-

2018):MANU/DE/2279/2018) has held that for all those persons who are major link in the entire operation have to be treated in the same manner as if they have taken part in trading and trafficking of drugs, therefore, their act is no less serious and they are also not entitled to be released on bail.

13. Considering entire facts situation of the case and particularly considering the seriousness of the offence and the nature of evidence available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicants.” The High Court arrived at the prima facie conclusion that the petitioner was habitual offender only on the basis of statements of co-accused, which would be inadmissible. There were no materials against the petitioner apart from the statements of the co-accused. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner on stringent conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court, including but not limited to the conditions with regard to sureties, bail bonds etc. Apart from reporting to the investigating authority on a regular basis, the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without leave of the Court.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(MANISH ISSRANI)                                     (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
COURT MASTER(SH)                                     COURT MASTER(NSH)