Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14295 (CHH)

BIRO v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/2291/2025 · 2025-03-21

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:13688 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2291 of 2025 Biro W/o Late Karnal Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Camp -01, Vrinda Nagar Near Anesh Mandir Police Station Vaishali Nagar Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Samdarsh Nirankari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.142/2024, registered at Police Station- Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the Police of Police Station – Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) has received a secret RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 information through the informant and on the basis of such information, the Police has seized a total of 4.736 Kgs of Ganja and Rs. 3,000/- from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested and the crime has been registered by the Police. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2024 passed in MCRC No. 7595/2024, on the ground that the applicant has 9 criminal antecedents out of which 4 are under the NDPS Act and 4 are under the Excise Act, further seizure witnesses have been turned hostile in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 10.08.2024. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that a total of 4.736 Kgs of Ganja and Rs. 3,000/- has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that there are 9 criminal antecedents of the applicant out of which 4 are under the NDPS Act, and 2 cases under the NDPS Act are still pending. Hence, this second bail application is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the quantity of contraband article Ganja seized from the possession of the applicant i.e. 4.736 Kgs of Ganja and Rs. 3,000/-, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, further that there are 9 criminal antecedents of the applicant out of which 3 4 are under the NDPS Act, and 2 cases under the NDPS Act are still pending, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, and further it goes to show that the applicant is a habitual offender and he has misused the liberty of granting bail earlier, thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the Second bail application of applicant – Biro involved in Crime No.142/2024, registered at Police Station- Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. The OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar