Smt. Manisha Chatriya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3866 of 2016 • Smt. Manisha Chatriya W/O Late Shridhar Chatriya Aged About 62 Years R/O Village Mansi Pedla, Police Station Chattarpur, District Ganjum, Odisha. Civil & Revenue District Ganjum. Present Address Godripara, Chirmiri, District Koria, Civil & Revenue District Koria, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mr. Luv Sharma, Panel Lawyer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 20.07.2016 1.

This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 23-09-2015 in connection with Crime No. 206 of 2015, registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 15 (b) and 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985. Earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 13-1-2016 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.7518 of 2015.

2.

As per prosecution case, on 23-09-2015 on receipt of secret information that the applicant was carrying poppy husk, the police party reached to the Bus-stand and thereafter a raid was conducted in which she was found in possession of 16 Kgs and 150 grams of poppy husk and thereby the aforesaid offence was committed.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the seizure witnesses namely Atul Gupta and Vijay Kashyap have been examined in this case, but they have not supported the prosecution case. He would further submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, she is in jail since 23-09-2015 and no further investigation is required, therefore, she may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the case diary and the documents.

6.

Perused the statements of the seizure witnesses who have also put their signatures and I.O has not been examined in this case. 7.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate for this Court to give a finding for consideration of the statements of the seizure witnesses at this stage, which would amount to decide the trial and since the trial Court would be the best judge to evaluate the evidence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8.

Accordingly, the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is also liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Raju