1 2025:CGHC:10313 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1650 of 2025 Mangaluram Sahu S/o Nankuram Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Chandrashekharpur, Adu Chhal, Raigarh, Police Station - Chhal, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rohan as well as Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Advocates. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.03.2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 705/2024 registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 2. The earlier first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court being MCRC No. 7381/2024 vide order dated KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 23.10.2024, on merits. Hence, this second bail application. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per secret information received from the informant that two persons has been involved in transportation of the contraband articles in the motorcycle No. CG- 11-BJ-2964 and on the basis of said information, they were searched and found from the possession of Rakesh Yadav and Ajay Singh, who also sitting in the motorcycle, 28 tablets Alprazolam, RLM 0.5 tablets and Prazo 0.5 tablets thus, total 742 and total 1342 tablets were recovered from them and on being enquired from them, they have stated that they had purchased from Raj Mohd. @ Monu Khan and when Raj Mohd. was arrested, he stated that he purchased the said tablets from the present applicant and therefore after the completion of investigation of the case, the aforesaid offence was registered against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 in MCRC No. 7381/2024. They further submits the new ground for filing of the second bail application is that there were four accused persons involved in the present case including the present applicant and two accused persons have been arrested by which the contraband article has been recovered from their possession and they further stated that the memorandum statement of the co-accused, who have arrested, they stated that they used to take medicine from the medical shop of the applicant however, no any tablets were recovered from the possession of applicant and the allegation made against the applicant is false and frivolous. 3 They also submits that the material witnesses who have been examined, they turned hostile and out of 12 prosecution witnesses, 11 witnesses have been examined including the Investigating OfÏcer and his statement is contradictory, the present applicant is innocent and prosecution has failed to proof the applicant’s involvement in said crime and further two witnesses are more added. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State 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 also endorse the said submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that from the possession of the co- accused persons, who have arrested, the contraband article which has been recovered, is much above the commercial quantity and the present applicant is also involved in this case. He further submits that there are transactions also between the applicant and the co-accused persons regarding the purchase of the contraband articles and his first bail application has already been rejected by this Court being MCRC No. 7381/2024 vide order dated 23.10.2024. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that in the present case, out of 12 prosecution witnesses, 11 witnesses have been examined including the Investigating OfÏcer and there are four accused persons involved in the present case, including the present applicant and the quantity of contraband article which has been 4 recovered from the co-accused persons, is much above the commercial quantity. The present applicant is also involved in this case, there are transactions also between the applicant and the co- accused persons regarding the purchase of the contraband articles and it cannot be a case of false implication and also considering the fact that the earlier bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court being MCRC No. 7381/2024 vide order dated 23.10.2024. Hence, this Court does not find a fit case to release the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant- Mangluram Sahu, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 705/2024 registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 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