High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramchandra Alang & Anr. vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 8 May 2018 · Citation: (2018) 05 CHH CK 0075

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. SAM KOSHY, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20B
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.Cr.C. No.2548 of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 430 words
1.

The applicants has preferred this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.215/2016 registered at Police Station

Bodhghat, District Bastar (C.G.). for the offence punishable under Section 20-B of NDPS Act.

2.

Present applicants are in jail since 16/07/2016.

3.

The allegation against the present applicants as per the prosecution case is that, the present applicants were found in possession of 5 K.G. of

Gaanja on a Motorcycle on 16/07/2016.

4.

The counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

5.

According to the counsel for the applicants, the ownership of the vehicle in which the alleged contraband was seized itself has not been established

by the prosecution. Even otherwise, the contraband was seized from the underneath the seat of the Motorcycle and until unless the ownership has

been established, it would be difficult to say that the present applicants were responsible for placing the said contraband underneath the seat of the

Motorcycle. He further submits that even otherwise, the material independent witness have already turned hostile and have not supported the case of

the prosecution. He further submits that the applicants in the instant case has already remained in custody for a period of almost 1 year and 10 months

and thus prayed for releasing the applicants on bail.

6.

The State counsel however opposing the bail application submits that, considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the

present applicants which was 5 K.G., they did not deserve bail at this juncture and thus prayed for rejection of the bail application.

7.

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, particularly taking note of the fact that the independent seizure

witness have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile so also considering the period of custody already undergone and also

considering the fact that the prosecution also has not established the ownership of the Motorcycle to be that of the present applicants, this Court is of

the opinion that prima-facie a strong case has been made out for grant of bail to the present applicants.

8.

Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed. It is ordered that the applicants shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bond

for a sum of Rs.15,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. The applicants shall thereafter appear

before the Trial Court on each and every date given by the said court.