Bail is the judicial release of an accused charged with a certain offence by imposing some restrictions on him: High court of Sikkim

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK Criminal Jurisdiction) Single Bench: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN JUDGE BAIL APPL. No. 121 Ganesh Sharma alias Gelal S o Shri Shiva Lall Sharma Aged about 35 years. Permanent resident of Near Hotel Lemon Tree Lower Sichey P.O. & P.S. Gangtok East Sikkim. Presently at State Jail Rongyek .... Petitioner Applicant Versus State of Sikkim .... Respondent Application under section 439 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Mr. Rahul Rathi Advocate for the petitioner applicant. Mr. Yadev Sharma Additional Public Prosecutor for the State JUDGMENT03.12.2021) Bhaskar Raj Pradhan J. This is a second bail application moved under section 439 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the applicant. It is being considered before issuance of notice upon the respondent however Mr. Yadev 2 Bail Appl. No. 121 Ganesh Sharma alias Gelal vs. State of Sikkim Sharma Additional Public Prosecutor is present on advance notice and opposes the application. Earlier this court had vide judgment dated 25.01.2021 in Bail Application No. 120rejected a similar bail application moved by the applicant. While doing so this court had examined the provision of section 18 of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act 2006 and arrived at a conclusion that it is in pari materia to section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. This court had also examined the judgments of the Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kishan Lal & Ors.1 Intelligence Officer Narcotics C. Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar & Anr.2 Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Dilip Pralhad Namade3 and Collector of Customs New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira4. While examining the facts of the case for the limited extent of examining whether or not to grant bail to the applicant this court had also recorded the following at paragraphs 16 and 17. The same is reproduced below: “16. The records reveal that the learned Special Judge having found prima facie materials against the applicant framed charges under the SADA 2006 and the IPC. The order framing charge is not under challenge. The materials placed before this court are materials filed along with the charge sheet. It reveals prima facie that Sandeep Chettri accused no.1) was apprehended on 09.06.2020 while driving a truck at the Rangpo boarder check post and during his search and seizure various recovered. The substances were 11 SCC 705 22 SCC 562 33 SCC 619 4SCC834 3 Bail Appl. No. 121 Ganesh Sharma alias Gelal vs. State of Sikkim controlled substances were accordingly seized. It is the case of the prosecution that during this time the called Sandeep Chettri accused no.1) from his phone no informing him that he was coming to receive the consignment of controlled substances in his vehicle. According to the prosecution he was thereafter apprehended at IBM Rangpo after a team was dispatched. Besides the statements of the two seizure witnesses as pointed out by Mr. Rahul Rathi the statement of the complainant also implicates the applicant for the commission of the alleged offence. The words “reasonable grounds” under Section 18 of the SADA 2006 would have same meaning as has been explained by the Supreme Court vis à vis Section 37 of the NDPS Act 1985. It would connote substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences charged and that this reasonable belief contemplated in turn would point to the existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. 17. This court has examined the materials which were placed before the learned Special Judge along with the charge sheet and the probable evidence which are required to be tested during trial. None of the materials placed would point to the existence of any facts or circumstances sufficient in themselves to justify the satisfaction that the applicant is not guilty of the offence charged. Contravention of Section 9(1)(c) and Section 9(4) of SADA 2006 entails punishment of rigorous imprisonment which shall not be less than 10 years but may extend to 14 years. Therefore in due consideration of the provisions of Section 439 and Section 18 of the SADA 2006 the materials against the applicant and the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant this court is of the considered view that bail sought for by the applicant cannot be granted. The application is accordingly rejected.” Mr. Rahul Rathi learned counsel for the applicant had taken this court to the various depositions which have now been recorded by the learned trial court in the matter. It is his submission that due to the fact that various prosecution witnesses have been examined is a change circumstances and therefore the applicant be granted bail. It is his further submission that if one was to examine the evidence of 4 Bail Appl. No. 121 Ganesh Sharma alias Gelal vs. State of Sikkim the witnesses it would show that the applicant would be entitled to an acquittal. According to the applicant as of now five witnesses have been examined. On examination of the evidence of Ongchyo Bhutia it is quite evident that what was alleged by the prosecution has been reiterated in the deposition of Ongchyo Bhutiathat the applicant had been constantly calling the accused no.1 informing him that he was coming to receive the consignment. Although Mr. Rathi desired that this court examine the other depositions as well as the cross examinations it may not be correct to examine the effect of the depositions of the five witnesses as depositions of the other witnesses are yet to be recorded and any opinion by the court on it at this stage may affect the final decision of the learned trial court. Suffice it to say that at this stage the depositions placed before this court does not connote substantial probable cause for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offences charged. The application for bail is rejected and disposed of accordingly with a request to the learned Special Judge to try and complete the trial as soon as possible. Approved for reporting : Yes No : Yes No Internet Bhaskar Raj Pradhan ) Judge 

Summary: Bail is the conditional release of a person accused of a crime, for an amount, pledged for the appearance of the accused when the same is due in court. The person paying the money acts as the surety.. The bail is filed by the advocate on behalf of the accused is held by the High court of Sikkim through the learned bench led by Single Bench: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE.In the matter of Presently at State Jail, Rongyek  Versus State of Sikkim [BAIL APPL. No. 13 of 2021] dealt with an issue mentioned above.    Earlier, this court had vided judgment dated 25.01.2021 in Bail Application No. 12 of 2020 (Ganesh Sharma Gelal vs. the State of Sikkim), rejected a similar bail application moved by the applicant. While doing so, this court had examined the provision of section 18 of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006 and arrived at a conclusion that it is in pari-materia to section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This court had also examined the judgments of the Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kishan Lal &amp; Ors.1, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar &amp; Anr.2, Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Dilip Pralhad Namade3 and Collector of Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira. Mr Rahul Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant, had taken this court to the various depositions which have now been recorded by the learned trial court in the matter. It is his submission that due to the fact that various prosecution witnesses have been examined there is a change in circumstances and therefore, the applicant be granted bail. The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case  According to the applicant, as of now, five witnesses have been examined. On examination of the evidence of Ongchyo Bhutia (PW-3), it is quite evident that what was alleged by the prosecution has been reiterated in the deposition of Ongchyo Bhutia (PW-3) that the applicant had been constantly calling the accused no.1 informing him that he was coming to receive the consignment.