Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 61503 (CHH)

SANTOSH WASNIK v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/10288/2025 · 2025-12-11

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:60600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10288 of 2025 Santosh Wasnik S/o Kanhaiya Lal Wasnik Aged About 36 Years R/o Schoolpara, Village Gathula, Police Out Post- Chikhali, Police Station- Kotwali District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Out Post Chikhali, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.12.2025 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. 610/2024 registered at Police Station– Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (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 the Police of Police Station – Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.), had received secret RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid and seized contraband article i.e. 25.685 kg Ganja from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the Police has registered the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and has been falsely implicated, as no contraband was seized from his possession. It is urged that there has been clear non- compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, rendering the alleged search and seizure invalid. The applicant was merely accompanying the main accused, Chanchal Singh, and the alleged contraband does not belong to him. Counsel further submits that out of 21 prosecution witnesses, only 10 have been examined so far, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The applicant has been in custody since 20.09.2024, and a substantial portion of the evidence has already been recorded, thereby eliminating any apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. It is also pointed out that the seizure witnesses have turned hostile, denied identifying the applicant, and have categorically stated that no seizure was made from him, which strikes at the very root of the prosecution story. It is lastly urged that the continued incarceration of the applicant, despite no delay attributable to him, violates his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and therefore he 3 deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. 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. 25.685 kg Ganja from the possession of the present applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity, 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. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the contraband article i.e. 25.685 kg Ganja from the possession of the present applicant, is much above the commercial quantity and the applicant has failed to give any explanation for the same, further it cannot be a case of false implication. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Santosh Wasnik, involved in Crime No. 610/2024 registered at Police Station– Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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