Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Chhattisgarh High Court: In a bail application filed by an accused in relation to an FIR filed against him under Section 20-B(II)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), the Single Judge Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., rejected the application, holding that the accused had failed to provide a sufficient reason for possessing the contraband and the three prosecution witnesses turning hostile amounted to tampering with the evidence. However, the Court also directed the Trial Court to pre-pone the next date and possibly conclude the trial within 4 months.
Background
During a police raid, the accused and co-accused persons were found with the joint possession of 33.7 kg of the contraband substance Ganja. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged against the accused, and he was arrested. The first bail application filed by the accused was rejected on merit vide order dated 31-01-2025. Hence, the present second bail application.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the order dated 31-01-2025, the Court stated that it was apparent that the first bail application was rejected because the contraband article, i.e., 33.7 kgs of Ganja, was recovered from the joint possession of the accused and co-accused persons. The quantity seized was way above the commercial quantity, and the accused failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the same. It was also observed that it could not be a case of false implication, particularly when the trial was already in progress.
The Court also noted that out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only three had been examined so far, and although they turned hostile, such conduct amounted to tampering with the evidence. Considering that the next date fixed for trial was 08-01-2026, the Court directed the Trial Court to pre-pone the matter and fix short dates for recording of evidence, considering that the accused was in custody since 08-11-2024. Further, the Director General of Police (“DGP”) was directed to ensure the presence of all remaining witnesses, including the concerned police personnel, before the Trial Court on the date so fixed for expeditious disposal of the trial.
The Court also expressed its hope and belief that the Trial Court would make an earnest effort to conclude the trial within 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there was no legal impediment.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the bail application.
Thereafter, the Court observed that in several cases the Trial Courts tended to grant long adjournments even where the accused was in custody. The Court remarked, “Such practice not only delays the conclusion of the trial but also adversely affects the fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under the Constitution.”
Thus, the Court directed that all Trial Courts shall make earnest efforts to avoid unnecessary adjournments and to fix short and continuous dates for recording evidence, particularly in cases where the accused is in judicial custody, unless there exists any unavoidable or compelling circumstance. Subsequently, the Registrar General was directed to circulate a copy of this order to all the Principal and District Judges of the State, and the DGP for necessary information and compliance.
[Hariom Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh, MCRC No. 8711 of 2025, decided on 03-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Ravikar Patel
For the respondent: Panel Lawyer Ankita Shukla