1 2025:CGHC:10504 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1734 of 2025 Sujeet Prajapati S/o Ram Bharosh Prajapati Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Champajhar Atal Chowk P.S. And Tahsil Patna District - Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Jhagrakhand District - M.C.B. (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Harshika Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.03.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 241/2024 registered at Police Station – Patna, District - Koriya, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station Patna, District - Koriya, (C.G.), received a secret information from RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the informant and on the said information police conducted a raid and seized contraband article i.e. Pyeevon Spas Plus Capsule 12 strips, each having 08 pieces total 96 pieces from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, offence punishable under Section 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered against present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She further submits that there is no material evidence available against the applicant, which connects him in commission of crime. She further submits that seized quantity of the contraband article from the present applicant was less than commercial quantity. She further submits that the applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, which is pending before the trial Court. She further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 02.10.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She also submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act which is pending before the trial Court, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. She further submits that the contraband article was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, and the applicant has failed to give any 3 explanation for the same, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on 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 and further the fact that though the contraband article i.e. Pyeevon Spas Plus Capsule 12 strips, each having 08 pieces total 96 pieces which has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant, is less than the commercial quantity but, the applicant has failed to give any explanation for the same, further it cannot be a case of false implication and also considering the fact that the applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act which is pending before the trial Court, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sujeet Prajapati, involved in Crime No. 241/2024 registered at Police Station – Patna, District - Koriya, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 4 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. 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 Rahul Dewangan