1 2025:CGHC:14874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1605 of 2025 Anshul Shukla S/o Virendra Kumar Shukla Aged About 23 Years R/o Darbhanga Chowk Ward No.-23, Shahdol, District - Shahdol (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., Police Station - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/03/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 402/2024 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 18.06.2024 on the basis of secret information received from the informant the, police personal of Police Station Ambikapur reached the place of incident KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 i.e. under Luchki Ghat, Ambikapur and barricaded the road and as per information they waiting the vehicle White color Maruti Ertiga bearing registration No. CG10-QB-7587 and thereafter the driver of the said vehicle come their but after seeing the police he left the vehicle and run away in jungle. The police had search the vehicle and sized 49.680 kg Ganja from the vehicle and during the course of investigation, the driver Rahul Soni has been arrested and on the basis of his memorandum statement of the driver, the present applicant has been arrested in the alleged commission of offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and as per the prosecution case, the vehicle which was involved in the crime only one person was seating who run away after seeing the police in the jungle, therefore the prosecution has registered the FIR against the one unknown person who driven the vehicle not any other person, even they have itself not seen any other person in the vehicle by which it clear that, at the time of incident the present applicant has not present in the vehicle and he has not at all involved in the alleged commission of offence, therefore the applicant may kindly be released on bail. He also submits that the prosecution agency has not followed the mandatory provision of NDPS Act, because the present applicant has been arrested only on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused from whom said contraband substance has been recovered, the present applicant has not present at the time of incident the alleged contraband article 3 has not been seized from exclusive possession of the applicant and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 31.07.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of contraband substance i.e. 49.680 Kgs of Ganja which is recovered from the possession of the co-accused, is much above the commercial quantity and on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused, the present applicant has been made accused however, there is no recovery made from the present applicant but it is an organized crime committed by the accused. Hence, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of contraband substance i.e. 49.680 Kgs of Ganja which is recovered from the possession of the co-accused, is much above the commercial quantity and on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused, the present applicant has been made accused however, there is no recovery made from the present applicant but it appears to be an organized 4 crime committed by the accused and on a pointed query being made as to what is the explanation of the contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the co-accused, he failed to explain the same and it cannot be a case of false implication, thus this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Anshul Shukla filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 402/2024 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal