Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11695 (CHH)

PREMPRAKASH NETAM v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/1784/2025 · 2025-03-05

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:10871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1784 of 2025 Premprakash Netam S/o Horilal Netam Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Sai Mandir Akhrab Babu Garden, Police Station Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station GRP Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/03/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 99/2024 registered at Police Station GRP Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Section 8(c) & 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.08.2024, as per secret information received from the informant, the Police of Police Station GRP Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) found the applicant and other co-accused persons in possession of contraband article i.e. 258 pieces of Triprolidine Hydrochoride and Codeine Phosphate Syrup BLUREX-T cough syrup was found and from another bag, 250 pieces of Triprolidine Hydrochoride and Codeine Phosphate Syrup BLUREX-T cough syrup was found making it total 508 pieces of bottles cough syrup 100 ml each worth Rs. 91,440/-, therefore, offence has been registered against the applicant. Hence the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in jail since 07.08.2024. He would further submit that the mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied with in this case. He would also submit that the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He would further submit that the quantity of contraband article i.e. 258 pieces of Triprolidine Hydrochoride and Codeine Phosphate Syrup 3 BLUREX-T cough syrup was found and from another bag, 250 pieces of Triprolidine Hydrochoride and Codeine Phosphate Syrup BLUREX-T cough syrup was found making it total 508 pieces of bottles cough syrup 100 ml each worth Rs. 91,440/- recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity, further the bail application of one of the co- accused persons, namely, Rahul Pathak has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2025 in MCRC No.1362/2025, as such, the bail applicant of present applicant is also liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the article which has been seized from the possession of the applicant is much above the commercial quantity, further the applicant has failed to give explanation for the same, so far as co-accused is concerned, the bail applicant of co-accused, namely, Rahul Pathak has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2025 in MCRC No.1362/2025 and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused and it cannot be a case of false implication, the trial is in progress. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant-Premprakash Netam, involved in Crime No. 99/2024 registered at Police Station GRP Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under 4 Section 8(c) & 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil