Navalram Bhuiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5560 of 2018 Navalram Bhuiya S/o Shri Rajmani Bhuiya, aged about 40 years R/o VillageGolna, P.S. Pandwa District- Daltangunj, Jharkhand. --- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station- Nagarnar, District- Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.).

---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. Bhaskar Pyashi, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 25/09/2018 1.

The applicant has preferred this First bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 179/2016 registered at Police StationNagarnar, District- Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20 (ii) B of the NDPS Act, 1985. 2.

As per prosecution story, on 24/11/2016 on the basis of information received from the informant, Investigating Officer reached the spot and searched the vehicle bearing registration No. OD10/9787. On search total 101 Kg of Ganja was seized from the possession of the present applicant. The applicant was arrested on 24/11/2016. 3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is in custody since 24/11/2016, charge-sheet has been filed and out of 13 witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been

examined till date, therefore, the trial will take much more time. He prays for releasing of the applicant on bail. 4.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that the seized Ganja comes under the purview of commercial quantity. The applicant is resident of Jharkhand and there is every possibility of absconding of the applicant after bail. 5.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the huge quantity of Ganja, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

6.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7.

Looking to the fact that out of 13 witnesses, 5 witnesses have been examined, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and decide the matter probably within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Rahul