Dharmendra Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 May, 2026

    0
    20
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Chattisgarh High Court

    Dharmendra Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 May, 2026

                                                                1
    
    
    
    
                                                                                2026:CGHC:23479
                                                                                          NAFR
    Digitally signed by
    ALOK SHARMA
    Date: 2026.05.26
    17:20:22 +0530
                                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
    
    
                                                   MCRC No. 4908 of 2026
    
                           Dharmendra Soni S/o Satyanarayan Soni Aged About 28 Years R/o
                           Akharabhantha P.S. Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                                               ... Applicant(s)
    
                                                             versus
    
                           State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S. Sankara
                           District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                                         ... Non-applicant(s)
                           For Applicant(s)          : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate.
                           For Non-applicant/State : Ms.       Sunita    Manikpuri,    Dy.    Govt.
                                                        Advocate.
    
    
                                              Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
    
                                                        Order on Board
                          26/05/2026
    
                           1.

    This is the first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

    Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the applicant for grant of

    SPONSORED

    regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.

    45/2026, registered at Police Station Sankara, District Mahasamund

    (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic

    Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

    2. The prosecution’s story in brief is that, the concerned Police Station

    received secret information through an informant on 03.03.2026 during
    2

    patrolling that co-accused Titu @ Solan Das was illegally keeping

    contraband ganja in his scooter for the purpose of sale. Acting upon

    the said information, the police intercepted the scooter and seized 4.87

    kg of contraband ganja from the possession of co-accused Titu @

    Solan Das. Thereafter, on the basis of his memorandum statement, the

    police conducted a search of his house and seized a further quantity of

    13.600 kg of contraband ganja. In the memorandum statement, co-

    accused Titu @ Solan Das allegedly disclosed that the seized

    contraband had been procured from co-accused Piyush Sharma and

    the present applicant. As a result thereof, the police registered an

    offence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act

    against the accused persons, and the present applicant was arrested

    on 04.03.2026 on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-

    accused.

    3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been

    falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent of the allegations

    levelled against him. It is contended that no contraband ganja has

    been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his instance,

    and his implication is based solely on the memorandum statement of

    co-accused Titu @ Solan Das, which, in the absence of any

    corroborative material, has limited evidentiary value. The entire

    quantity of 13.600 kg of ganja was recovered from the house of co-

    accused Titu @ Solan Das and no recovery whatsoever has been

    effected from the present applicant. It is further submitted that there is

    no independent evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged

    offence and that he has been implicated merely on the basis of the
    3

    disclosure statement of the co-accused. He further submits that the

    applicant has no criminal antecedents. The charge-sheet has already

    been filed, no further custodial interrogation is required, and the

    applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.03.2026. Therefore, he

    prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

    4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application

    of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been

    filed in the present case.

    5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-

    diary.

    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of

    allegations levelled against the present applicant, and taking into

    consideration that no contraband has been recovered from the

    possession of the applicant, his implication is based primarily on the

    memorandum statement of the co-accused, he has no criminal

    antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the

    competent Court, the applicant has been in judicial custody since

    04.03.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time,

    this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to

    be released on bail in the present case.

    7. Let applicant, Dharmendra Soni, involved in Crime No. 45/2026,

    registered at Police Station – Sankara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for

    the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act, be

    released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties

    in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the
    4

    following conditions:-

    (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect
    that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates
    fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in
    court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open
    for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and
    pass orders in accordance with law.

    (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial
    court on each date fixed, either personally or through his
    counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient
    cause, the trial court may proceed against him under
    Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

    (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail
    during trial and in order to secure his presence,
    proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and
    the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date
    fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall
    initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law,
    under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

    (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before
    the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the
    case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
    statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion
    of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or
    without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial
    court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and
    proceed against him in accordance with law.

    8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial

    Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

    Sd/-

    (Bibhu Datta Guru)
    Judge
    Alok

    [ad_1]

    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here