Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41106 (CHH)

DURGANATH PANDEY v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/6872/2025 · 2025-08-31

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:44304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6872 of 2025 Durganath Pandey S/o Late Nageshwar Nath Pandey Aged About 52 Years (Wrongly Typed As 23 Years In Impugned Order), R/o. Village Roll, Police Station- Chanho, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Sariya, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2025 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. 13/2025 registered at Police Station – Sariya, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 29 and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 18.01.2025, information was received from an informer that the driver of a grey-coloured Swift Dzire bearing Registration No. CG.15.DZ.9430 was coming from Odisha and ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.02 11:29:53 +0530 2 proceeding towards Allahabad/Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) via Kanchanpur, Saria (C.G.), carrying an illegal narcotic substance, i.e. Ganja. Acting on this information, the police intercepted a grey-coloured Maruti Swift Dzire matching the description given by the informer on the main road in front of Police Station Saria. Upon search, the applicant was found in possession of 30 packets wrapped with khaki-coloured tape, each containing 1 kilogram of Ganja, totalling 30 kilograms. Accordingly, the applicant was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded by the police, wherein he disclosed that, at the request of the vehicle owner, Yamuna Prasad Mishra, he had gone to Odisha to procure Ganja from Vikas Sahu, and thereafter both of them intended to transport it for sale to Kamlesh Singh in Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh). Acting on this disclosure, the police registered the instant F.I.R. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the said crime was registered against the applicant because he, in good faith, on the request of the owner of the said vehicle, Yamuna Prasad Mishra, went to Orissa and while returning, he was found with illegal narcotic substance, Ganja, by the Police. He also submits that present applicant at present has no pending criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 18.01.2025 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, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that the quantity of contraband article i.e. 30 Kgs of Ganja, was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity and as such, the applicant 3 is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the contraband article which has been seized from the possession of the present applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity and the applicant has failed to give any explanation for the same and it cannot be a case of false implication. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Durganath Pandey, involved in Crime No. 13/2025 registered at Police Station – Sariya, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 29 and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 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 Abhishek