1 2025:CGHC:6612 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 577 of 2025 Pramod Dhruw S/o Mahettar Dhruw Aged About 52 Years R/o Magarpara Marar Gali, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Civil Line, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.71/2024, registered at Police Station- Civil Line, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the Police of Police Station – Civil Line, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) has received a secret information through the informant and on the basis of such RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 information, the Police has seized a total of 1.850 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested and the crime has been registered by the Police. 3. First Bail Application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2024 passed in MCRC No. 2287 of 2024, on the ground that there are 22 criminal antecedents of the applicant out of which 2 are under the NDPS Act of the years 2016 and 2023. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on the ground that there are 22 criminal antecedents of the applicant out of which 2 are under the NDPS Act of the years 2016 and 2023, so far as the case under the NDPS Act of the year 2016 is concerned the applicant is acquitted in the said case, and the case under the NDPS Act of the year 2023 is pending because of the non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court, and out of 17 prosecution witnesses 3 have been examined. The applicant is in jail since 17.01.2024. The applicant is in jail since 17.01.2024. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that a total of 1.850 Kgs of Ganja has 3 been seized from the possession of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that there are 22 criminal antecedent of the applicant out of which 2 are under the NDPS Act of the years 2016 and 2023, and the case of the year 2023 is still pending, and there are more criminal antecedents of other nature of crimes. Hence, this second bail application is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the quantity of contraband article Ganja seized from the possession of the applicant i.e. 1.850 Kgs, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, further the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on the ground that there are 22 criminal antecedents of the applicant out of which 2 are under the NDPS Act of the years 2016 and 2023, so far as the case under the NDPS Act of the year 2016 is concerned the applicant is acquitted in the said case, and the case under the NDPS Act of the year 2023 is pending because of the non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court, and in present case out of 17 prosecution witnesses 3 have been examined by the trial Court, but the said fact cannot be denied that there is a criminal antecedent of the applicant under the NDPS Act which is pending of the year 2023 and there are more criminal antecedents of other nature of 4 crimes, he is a habitual offender and he has misused the bail granted to him earlier and it cannot be a case of false implication, 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. 8. Accordingly, this Second bail application of applicant – Pramod Dhruw involved in Crime No.71/2024, registered at Police Station- Civil Line, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, is rejected at this stage. 9. Needless to say that the learned trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 10. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar