1 2025:CGHC:20289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3402 of 2025 Segam Sai Kumar S/o Segam Raju Aged About 23 Years R/o Indira Colony Motu, P.S. Motu District- Malkangiri ( Orissa ) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Sho P.S. Konta, District- Sukma ( C.G.). ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Salvik Tiwari, as well as Mr. Veerendra Verma, Advocate (through V.C.) For Non-applicant : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/05/2025 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. 34/2024 registered at Police Station- Konta, District- Sukma (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. 2. The earlier first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 1502/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2025, on merits. Hence this Second bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.11.2024, the police at Konta Police Station, Sukma District, Chhattisgarh, received secret information that two individuals from Odisha were traveling to Telangana. Acting on this tip, the police intercepted an auto and from there 16.680 kilograms of ganja was seized from the applicant along with co-accused joint possession. Subsequently, the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant along with co-accused. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits and hence, this is second bail application filed by the applicant and the new ground which has been argued by the counsel for the applicant is that the material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and they have turned hostile. He further submits that the quantity of alleged contraband from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused is of only 16.680 Kgs and that does not come within the ambit of commercial quantity. He also submits that the seizure memo of the alleged contraband are not witness by independent witness and the witness is of investigation agency and the investigation agency has not complied with the mandate of Section 50 of NDPS Act and Section 42 of NDPS Act and as per the version of the prosecution the applicant was carrying the contraband in Auto and no public independent eye witness has been joined in the investigation. He relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rup Bahadur Magar @ Rabin Vs. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 11589/2024, has 3 observed that the bail cannot be rejected on the ground that the trial will be expedited. He further relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC Online SC 352. There is no oral and documentary evidence on judicial record that there is reasonable ground for coming to the conclusion that the applicant has committed any offence under the provision of NDPS Act and no prima facie case under the alleged section is made out on the basis of prosecution evidence even if it is taken as it is. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submit that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits and the new ground which has been raised by the counsel for the applicants does not appears to be reasonable and the same cannot be a good ground for releasing the applicant on bail as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as the seizure witnesses have turned hostile, the same cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence. 8. From perusal of the order dated 21.02.2025, it is apparent that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on the ground that 4 the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and another i.e. 16.680 Kgs of Ganja, however which is less than commercial quantity but the applicant has failed to give any explanation for the said recovery, as such, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant-Segam Sai Kumar, involved in Crime No. 34/2024 registered at Police Station- Konta, District- Sukma (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/ Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal