1 2025:CGHC:18875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2375 of 2025 Roshan Ali S/o Abdul Gaffar Aged About 30 Years R/o Ganesh Nagar Chuchuhiyapara, P.S. Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Advocate along with Mr. Rohan, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25/04/2025 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. 833/2024 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur, (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 250 grams of Ganja from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to consider the rfact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said incident. He further submits that the present matter is a bailable offence, subject to summary trial, and triable by a Magistrate. He also states that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish the bail bond. It is, therefore, surprising that the learned JMFC as well as the learned ASJ have rejected the bail application and instead granted remand in a bailable offence. He further submits that the present applicant has total 04 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and NDPS Act, out of which, he has already been acquitted in 02 cases under the Excise Act and NDPS Act and remaining 02 cases are pending under the Excise Act and NDPS Act and he is in jail since 15.11.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submit that the charge- sheet has already been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant has 04 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and NDPS Act, which 3 shows that the he is a habitual offender. He further submits that from the possession of the present applicant the said contraband article i.e. Ganja was seized, therefore, 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. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the present applicant has total 04 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and NDPS Act, out of which, he has already been acquitted in 02 cases under the Excise Act and NDPS Act and remaining 02 cases are pending under the Excise Act and NDPS Act, also considering the fact that in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 15.11.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Roshan Ali, involved in Crime No. 833/2024 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of 4 bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 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