SMT. REENA @ SARVARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this impugned order dated 17.6.2015 passed by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act, South Bastar Dantewada, in Special Case No.4/2015, the applicant seeks to challenge the rejection of her application filed under Section 167 (2) of the CrPC for grant of bail.

(2.) Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that from the present applicant only 8 Kgs., of cannabis/Ganja was recovered, whereas from coaccused Asgar Ali 21 Kgs., of Ganja was recovered and thus, 29 Kgs., of Ganja was recovered from two accused in Crime No.36/2015, registered at Police Station Sukma, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'). He would further submit that the FIR was made on 12 -4 -2015, seizure was also made on 12.4.2015 and the applicant was arrested on 12 -4 -2015. Learned counsel would further submit that since the Ganja allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant is only 8 Kgs., and 8 Kgs., of Ganja is less than commercial quantity, charge -sheet ought to have been filed within 60 days by virtue of the provisions contained in proviso (a) (ii) to Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. as the punishment is less than ten years and since the charge -sheet was filed after 60 days, therefore she is entitled to be released on bail under the provision contained in Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the Special Judge is absolutely unjustified in rejecting her application filed for grant of bail under above stated provision, as such impugned order deserves to be set -aside and applicant be directed to be released on bail.

(3.) Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the State, would submit that in Crime No.36/2015 from the applicant and one another co -accused Asgar Ali, total 29 Kgs., of Ganja was recovered and quantity of Ganja is more than commercial quantity, as commercial quantity is 20 Kgs., as per the notification dated 16th July, 1996 (serial No.55 of the Table) issued by the Central Government and, therefore, Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of the CrPC would be attracted. Learned State counsel would further submit that charge -sheet was filed on the date on which the application of the applicant was decided as such, learned Special Judge was absolutely justified in rejecting the application for grant of bail under Section 167 (2) of the CrPC. He would also submit that since the Ganja recovered from the possession of the applicant and the co -accused is more than commercial quantity, Section 36 -A (4) of the NDPS Act, would be attracted and the period for filing charge -sheet would be 180 days, as such, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.