Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25064 (CHH)

SONBHADRA RAJWADE v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/4284/2025 · 2025-06-11

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:23499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4284 of 2025 Sonbhadra Rajwade S/o Shri Kannadhu Ram @ Kanthu Ram Rajwade Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Bhittikala, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Officer In Charge Of Police Station Dongripali, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.06.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No.03/2024, registered at Police Station- Dongripali, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 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 – Dongripali, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) has received a secret information through the informant and on the basis of the said RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 information, the Police authority has seized a total of 24 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of the applicant. Hence, this application. 3. First bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.09.2024 passed in MCRC No. 6749/2024. 4. 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 the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 05.06.2024. It is further submitted that 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the trial Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that a total of 24 Kgs of Ganja has been seized, which is much above the commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that there is one more criminal antecedent of the applicant under the IPC. Hence, his bail application is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, as the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, the same cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the quantity of contraband article 24 Kgs of Ganja has been seized from the possession of the applicant, 3 which is much above the commercial quantity and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, and there is one more criminal antecedent of the applicant under the IPC, he is a habitual offender and he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, 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. 9. Accordingly, the Second bail application of applicant – Sonbhadra Rajwade involved in Crime No.03/2024, registered at Police Station- Dongripali, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B) of the NDPS Act, is rejected at this stage. 10. Needless to say that the learned trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 11. The Office 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