1 2025:CGHC:19414 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3276 of 2025 Phulchand Rawat S/o Chhitarmal Rawat Aged About 36 Years R/o Hanumanji Ki Tibamaid, Tahsil And Police Station Virat Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.04.2025 1. This is the second 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. 134/2024 registered at Police Station - Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 8659 of 2024 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2024 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27/07/2024, Police Station Baramkela received information and conducted a search of an ECO Sports vehicle bearing registration number RJ-14-CY-5881. The applicant, along with two others, was found present in the said vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle, it was allegedly found to contain 50 kilograms of a contraband substance, packed in 30 packets. Based on this discovery, the contraband was recovered from the joint possession of the accused persons, and accordingly, an FIR was registered against the applicant and the two others. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the relevant witnesses, including the seizure witnesses who have been examined before the learned Special Judge, have turned completely hostile and have not supported the prosecution’s case. He further submits that after the rejection of the bail application of the co-accused, namely Omprakash Repswal, in MCRC No. 9067 of 2024, vide order dated 02.01.2025, the said co-accused preferred a Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Apex Court allowed the S.L.P., directed him to surrender before the concerned Court, and ordered that he be enlarged on bail. In light of the same, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the present applicant may also be granted similar benefit. He further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 27.07.2024, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Accordingly, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 3 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the relevant witnesses, including the seizure witnesses who have been examined before the learned Special Judge, have turned completely hostile and have not supported the prosecution’s case, further after the rejection of the bail application of the co-accused, namely Omprakash Repswal, in MCRC No. 9067 of 2024, vide order dated 02.01.2025, the said co-accused preferred a Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Apex Court allowed the S.L.P., directed him to surrender before the concerned Court, and ordered that he be enlarged on bail and also considering the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 27.07.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant – Phulchand Rawat, involved in Crime No. 134/2024 registered at Police Station - Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 4 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 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 his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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 his, 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 his in accordance with law. 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 Rahul Dewangan