Pappu Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3897 of 2020 • Pappu Yadav S/o Dayaram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bibipura, P.O. / P.S. Dostpur, Tahsil And District Sultanpur Uttar Pradesh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Non Applicant For the Applicant :

Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For Non Applicant :

Mr. D.K. Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board 23.06.2020

1. Heard on application for grant of ad interim bail and also regular bail.

2. This is second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant before this Court. No other bail application is pending before any other Court.

3. Earlier, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2019 passed in MCRC No.6675 of 2018 considering prima facie case against him.

4. Perused the case diary provided by the learned counsel for the State in connection with Crime No.648/2017 registered at Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20-B (ii-c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.08.2017 near bus stand near Maharana Pratap Chowk, Sub Inspector Kiran Singh Rajput seized 30 kg cannabis from the possession of the applicant.

6. Counsel for the applicant submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined, case is fixed for final argument, looking to the present scenario the early conclusion of trial is not possible. Applicant is in jail since 25.08.2017.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail

application.

8. The case is fixed for final argument. No sufficient reason exits for releasing the applicant on interim bail. Hence, application for grant of ad interim bail is rejected.

9. Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, looking to this fact that case is fixed for final argument, this Court finds that applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 439 CrPC in second round of litigation. Consequently, his second bail application is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge parul