Ramadhar Rathore v. State Of Chhattisgarh

AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5234 of 2018 Ramadhar Rathore, son of Shri Ramesh Prasad Rathore, aged about 26 years, resident of Village Thondipani, Police Station Jathari, District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh. ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur (CG). ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashok Soni, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board 24.07.2018 1.

This is second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant before this Court. The first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2709 of 2018 was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2018. 2.

Perused the copy of charge-sheet provided by the learned counsel for the applicant in connection with Crime No.282/2015 registered in Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Section 20-B of NDPS Act, 1985. 3.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.12.2015 the police constable Nirmal Bhose posted at Police Station Koni, when he was on patrolling duty informed at Station House Officer, Koni that in village Sendari near By Pass Road square, one white car having without number is turned turtle on the road. Thereafter, T.I. Mr. G.R. Diwan reached there and searched the car. At the time of searching of the said car, 01 quintal 6 kg 400 gm packets of cannabis were seized. During the

investigation it was found that the vehicle was purchased by the present applicant.

4.

Counsel for the applicant would submit that the alleged seized articles were not in execution possession of the present applicant. Some unknown person without the knowledge of applicant had purchased the said car in his name and used the same and also there is no signature of applicant in tax/vehicle/charges invoice. Counsel for the applicant also pointed out in my attention on the deposition of Ram Kumar Dwivedi (PW-2). He would further submit that applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case and as such the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 5.

Counsel for the State would oppose the prayer for grant of bail. 6.

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

7.

In the tax/vehicle/charges invoice, it has been mentioned that the car was sold to the present applicant.

8.

What would be effect of not found the signature of the applicant on the said tax/vehicle/charges invoice and statement of Ram Kumar Dwivedi (PW-2), it should be decided at the time of disposal of case on the basis of merits. At this stage for deciding the bail application, the aforesaid facts do not helpful for the applicant. 9.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the seriousness of the offence and looking to the impact of granting bail to the applicant on society, this Court is not inclined to give benefit of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. to the applicant.

10.

Consequently, the second bail application is rejected. 11.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) JUDGE L/-