Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41616 (CHH)

RAHUL BIKAL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/7014/2025 · 2025-09-02

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:44999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7014 of 2025 Rahul Bikal S/o Shri Dharampal Bikal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Bhothan Police Station Singana District Jhunjhun Rajasthan ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Tikarapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Seema Mishra Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.09.2025 Heard, 1. Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that she has filed his power/vakalatnama today itself on behalf of the applicant. 2. 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. 714/2024 registered at Police Station – Tikarapara, District – Raipur VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.03 18:45:33 +0530 2 (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Police Station - Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) has received a secret information through the informant and on the basis of the said information, the Police authority has seized a total of 22.730 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested and the case was registered by the Police as crime no.714/2024 dated 17/09/2024.Copy of FIR is annexed herein as Annexure A/2. 4. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as the allegations leveled against him are unsustainable and unsupported by any direct or reliable evidence. The prosecution story rests merely on circumstantial evidence, and even the witnesses have not supported the case. No objectionable substance was ever recovered from the applicant, and the alleged seizure is falsely attributed to him. The charge sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in custody since 17.09.2024, and no further custodial interrogation is required. He is a young person aged about 28 years with no criminal antecedents, and continued detention would irreparably harm his career and future prospects. None of the ingredients of the alleged offences are fulfilled from the material on record, and there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with witnesses, as he is a permanent resident with movable and immovable property. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and abide by all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble 3 Court hence, he is entitled to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the quantity of contraband article i.e. 22.730 Kgs of Ganja, was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity and as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the contraband article was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, and the quantity so recovered is significantly above the commercial quantity as specified under the NDPS Act. The applicant has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation with regard to such possession. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Rahul Bikal, involved in Crime No. 714/2024 registered at Police Station – Tikarapara, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, is rejected. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav