Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4739 (CHH)

RAMKHILAWAN VISHWAKARMA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/717/2025 · 2025-01-27

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:4712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 717 of 2025 Ramkhilawan Vishwakarma S/o Harprasad Vishwakarma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Khairaduban, P.S. Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Baloda, District Mahasamund (C.G.) … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 74/2024 registered at Police Station Baloda, District - Mahasamund, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Police of Police Station Baloda, District – Mahasamund, (C.G.) has received secret information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid and seized 5.300 Kgs of contraband RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.28 11:03:17 +0530 2 ganja from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, FIR was lodged against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and 5.300 Kgs of contraband ganja was not recovered from the possession of the present applicant. He further submits that the applicant has not knowing about the seized contraband ganja and only on the basis of the suspicious, the prosecution has made false registered against the present applicant. He further submits that other co-accused person, namely, Sahasram Vishwakarma has already granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 in MCRC No. 8159/2024. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 22.09.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 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 also submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent of the year 2024 under the NDPS Act which is pending, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. He further submits that from the possession of the present applicant total 5.300 Kgs of Ganja was seized. As such, the present 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 fact that though the other co-accused person, namely, Sahasram Vishwakarma has already granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8159/2024 vide order dated 25.11.2024 on the ground that he has no criminal antecedents, but the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent of the year 2024 under the NDPS Act which is pending, which shows that the present applicant 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 – Ramkhilawan Vishwakarma, involved in Crime No. 74/2024 registered at Police Station Baloda, District - Mahasamund, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) 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. OfÏce 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