Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21023 (CHH)

SURENDAR SINGH v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/3514/2025 · 2025-07-09

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:32055 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3514 of 2025 Surendar Singh S/o Pramjeet Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Nag Kalan, P.O. Nag Kalan, Police Station- Majitha, District- Amritsar, Punjab Pin 143601, Present Address- Near Jaiswal Hotel, Transport Nagar, Hathkojh, Police Station- Bhilai-03, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station-Jamul, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 18/2025 registered at Police Station – Jamul, District- Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 21(b), 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station Jamul, District- Durg (C.G.), received a secret information from the informant and on the said information police conducted a raid and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 seized Heroin (Chitta) i.e. brown sugar weighing about 9.3 grams from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, offence punishable under Sections 21(b), 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered against present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no material evidence available against the applicant which connects him with the commission of the crime. He also submits that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the suspicion. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 10.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He submits that Heroin (Chitta) i.e. brown sugar weighing about 9.3 grams seized from the possession of the present applicant. He also submits the applicant belongs to the State of Punjab where 02 criminal cases are registered against him under the NDPS Act, shows that the applicant is involved in such offences and is a habitual offender, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the contraband article Heroin (Chitta) i.e. brown sugar weighing about 9.3 grams seized from the possession of the present applicant and the applicant belongs to the State of Punjab where 02 criminal cases are registered against him under the NDPS Act which is of the years 2022 and 2024, shows that the applicant is involved in such offences and is a habitual offender, 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, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Surendar Singh, involved in Crime No. 18/2025 registered at Police Station – Jamul, District- Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 21(b), 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan