1 2025:CGHC:6427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1031 of 2025 • Dharmendra Maurya S/o Ramesh Kumar Maurya Aged About 24 Years R/o Villlage Rajendra Gram Hartola, Police Station Rajendragram, District Anuppur, M.P. ...Applicant. versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Singhoda, District- Mahasamund, C.G. ... State/Respondent(s). For Applicant : Shri Puspendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For State : Shri Anurag Tripathi, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 05/02/2025 1. This is Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(for short “BNSS, 2023”) for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.06/2023 registered at Police Station- Singhoda, Mahasamund C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act, 1985. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.02.05 18:04:34 +0530 2 2. Earlier Bail Application of the present applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same after examination of material witnesses vide order dated 08.06.2023 passed in MCRC No.4051/2023. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 13.01.2023, Police seized 80 kg contraband (Ganja) from the possession of applicant, therefore aforesaid offence has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that applicant is behind the bars since 13.1.2023 and conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. Further, during the investigation, seizure witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution. Considering the backdrop, applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and would submit that 80kg contraband (Ganja) has been recovered from the joint possession of applicant along with other co-accused which is more than 4 times of the commercial quantity. He further submits that applicant is a resident of neighbouring State (Madhya Pradesh) and was apprehended in the district which shares border with Orrisa State, by Police Station Singhoda, while he was transporting the contraband (Ganja) in Creta vehicle bearing registration No.CG-LK-5040. He also submits that only because seizure witnesses have turned hostile is not a ground for acquittal. He further submits that rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act attracts in the matter and places reliance in the matter of Rizwan Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627, State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh1 1 (2020) 12 SCC 122 3 6. In the matter of Rajesh(supra), the law relating to exercise of bail application in the offences under the NDPS Act has been dealt and the following was observed at para-18:- 18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. In Union of India v. Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429 , 1999 SCC (Cri) 1522, it has been elaborated as under: “7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafÏcking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) (1990) 1 SCC 95 , 1990 SCC (Cri) 65 as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24) ‘24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafÏcking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.’ 8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafÏcking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.” 7. In the matter of Rizwan Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, a law has been laid down that the testimony of the ofÏcial witnesses cannot be 4 rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. It was materially observed at para-12 which reads thus:- “12. It is settled law that the testimony of the ofÏcial witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case [see Pardeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC 808 , (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 420].” 8. In the matter of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal2, it was held thus:- “…………...The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.” 9. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the mode and manner in which huge quantity of contraband (Ganja) was transported and recovered, this Court is of the view that Section 37 NDPS Act attracts in the case and only because the seizure witnesses have turned hostile, no case is made out for grant of bail. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 10.Accordingly, this Bail Application is rejected. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891