Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 93 (CHH)

ADITYA MANJHI v. STATE OF C. G.

2005-03-11

V.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2005
ORDER Heard. The petitioner Aditya Manjhi has preferred this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. He is accused in Crime No. 197/ 2004, registered at Police Station, Pandri (Mova), District Raipur (C.G.), for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is alleged that, the petitioner was found in possession of 9 kilograms have been framed and thereafter both the parties have adduced their evidence and now the matter is fixed for final hearing. 5. An application under order 13 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff for summoning the record of the Revenue Case No. 643-N6, 1997-98 order dated 30-9-98 and Revenue Case No. 3-N 27, 1998-99 order dated 8-1-1999. Said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 25-11-2003 observing therein that there is no need to call the records as the plaintiff could have produced the certified copy of the orders, instead of calling of the records of the cases. It appears after this order the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application under order 7 rule 14(3) and the same was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 30-9-2004 the documents have been placed on record. Thereafter the plaintiff herein moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17 praying therein that the petitioner/ plaintiff wants to recall him so as to tender these documents into evidence. That application has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 2-12-2004. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since these documents are important for just decision of the case. Therefore, it is necessary for the petitioner to tender these documents into the evidence, therefore, the trial Court ought to have recalled the petitioner/plaintiff for tendering these documents into evidence and marking of exhibits, which were permitted to be taken on record vide order dated 30-9-2004, as that situation arose only after the examination of the plaintiff was over. 7. Therefore, it is necessary for the petitioner to tender these documents into the evidence, therefore, the trial Court ought to have recalled the petitioner/plaintiff for tendering these documents into evidence and marking of exhibits, which were permitted to be taken on record vide order dated 30-9-2004, as that situation arose only after the examination of the plaintiff was over. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and argued that the prayer made by the petitioner was not covered under Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and he further submitted that as far as the tendering of these documents into evidence is concerned, counsel for the respondents is ready to admit the existence of these documents subject to legal objections and in this given situation the petitioner's examination becomes redundant and unnecessary and in this way these documents may be tendered into the evidence. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents appears to be just, fair and proper. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to allow the counsel for the respondents/defendants for admission or denial, for which learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that he would admit the existence of theof Ganja. The same was recovered and seized from him. Petitioner's contention is that, recovery has been made from an open place. The quantity alleged is more than smaller quantity but lesser than commercial quantity. He is permanent resident of M.P.V.36, Thana Motu, District Malkhangiri (Orissa). He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for both the parties admit that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Considering all the facts, the petition, filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., is allowed, and it is directed that, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two solvent sureties of the like sum by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the concerned Courts as and when directed, accompanied with the following conditions, he be released on bail :- 1. He shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused. 2. He shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused. 2. He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court. 3. He shall not leave the State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of the Court . Bail Granted.