$ing!e Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.‘ %% O OF 201 1 PETITION UNDER SECTION 482/OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 .7 PETITIONER Arindam Das S/o Naba Kurnar Das, ag’ed about \55' 6% years, Caste Karmkar, R/o “b Z3 I n Bhattapara, Police Station P R m! *m‘%m¢w Rajgangpur, Dist. Sundargarh Pteknm high“ Dam (Orissa). Ct Versus RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Pali, District Korba (CG). \ ‘q- “” ‘ \ XI-Hc—78 ¢ Wm Crmfvwgw ’1 zoo @ A ' Wm (Wu) WWW ammm, man a?“m WW§WW $ aimm i Deepii 'SB : Hon’bie Shrij‘v‘lanindra Mohan S ‘nrivastava. J. 14-07-2G11. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, couns‘ei “Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Heard. This petition has been fiied Speciai Judge, NDPS,‘by which the his car has been rejected. Learned counsei for the petition notice and knowiedge of the petitioner his vehicie is missing, he iodged rep further submits that the triai is iikeiy to seizure wouid be junked. 6n the other hand, iearned $ta' ‘used for carrying contraband in huge oniyratter vehicie was seized on 1‘2i1 fixed for recording evidence on 16705;” Taking into consideration the s and aiso considering that huge qu transported across the borders of the order passed by the Court below. The petition is therefore dismi conciusion of the trial, the petitioner m for the petitioner. far the State. against order dated 23i4/20’11‘ passed by the petitioners appiication for interim custodv of r submits that the vehicie was used without and when the petitioner came to know that rt in the poiioe station on 15/12/1‘0. He 'ake some time and the vehicie, tying under counsei submits that the vehicie has been ,uantity and the petitioner has iodged report JtO. It is aiso submitted that the trial was ' 01 1. bmission of teamed counsel for the parties ntity of Ganjalis aileged to have been 'tate, i am not inciined to interfere with the sed. However, in case, there is de‘iay in y revive this petition. Sdl— Manindl‘a Mohan Shrivastava