Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9507 (CHH)

ASHOK YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/1499/2025 · 2025-02-21

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:9192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1499 of 2025 Ashok Yadav S/o Late Aaju Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Patharri, Post Salheghori, P.S. Lormi, Dist.- Mungeli C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer Tikrapara, Dist.- Raipur C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21/02/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 735/2024 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that upon receiving information from an informant, the police took the accused, Shubham Soni, into ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.25 16:23:50 +0530 2 custody on 23.09.2024. He was found in possession of 31.88 grams of charas, 98 MDMA tablets weighing approximately 45.08 grams, and one iron pistol without a magazine. Following his memorandum, the police arrested other accused individuals, including the applicant. The police seized 135 grams of charas from the applicant and subsequently implicated him under the relevant section, filing a charge sheet against him before the Special Judge (NDPS) in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. He submits that from the possession of the applicant 135 gms of contraband Charas has been seized and the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 01.10.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent court. She further submitted that although the applicant has no prior criminal record, a contraband article i.e. 135 grams of Charas, a commercial quantity, was seized from the applicant's possession, for which no explanation has been provided. She also submitted that the bail application of the co-accused, Shubham Soni, was rejected by this Court on January 17, 2025, in MCRC No. 3 7390 of 2024. Therefore, she argued that the bail application of the present applicant is also liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires although the applicant has no criminal antecedents, 135 grams of charas were seized which is more than small quantity and less than commercial quantity, and the applicant has failed to give explanation for the said recovery, nor he has any license to possess the same, further it cannot be a case of false implication, furthermore, the bail application of co-accused Shubham Soni was rejected by this Court on 17.01.2025, in MCRC No. 7390 of 2024, therefore, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Ashok Yadav, involved in Crime No. 735/2024 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 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. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek