1 2025:CGHC:22133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3792 of 2025 Pramod Singh Rajput S/o Pratap Singh Rajput Aged About 25 Years R/o Mahasamund Ramantola District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.05.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 627 of 2024 registered at Police Station – Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 20(B), 22(C) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’). BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.05.20 17:45:56 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.09.2024, SHO of Telibandha received a secret information from the informer acting upon which he along with his staff reached the place at informed by the informer that one vehicle Artica bearing No. CG 06 GN 9661, came up with 4 sacks of Ganja about to 61.480 kg from the car trunk. After the completion of all the formalities FIR was registered against the present applicant and other co-accused person. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the alleged contraband article i.e. 61.480 kgs of ganja was not seized from the possession of the present applicant. She further submits that the present applicant is only a driver of Booking Car Owner of Car is directly contacted through phone and booked car. The present applicant is only employee of Taxi travel agency which is very clear from the memorandum statement of co-accused, namely, Ajay Ukey. She would submit that co-accused, namely, Kamlesh Telasi had already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 in MCRC No.2738 of 2025, therefore, she submits that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity. She also contended that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 28.09.2024. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submitted that from the co-accused, namely, Kamlesh Telasi a total of 3.082 kgs of ganja has been recovered, 3 which is below the commercial quantity, but from the vehicle, which was driven by the present applicant the contraband article i.e. 61.480 kgs of Ganja, was recovered, which shows that the applicant involved in a illegal transportation of contraband article i.e. ganja, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that though the co-accused, namely, Kamlesh Telasi had already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 in MCRC No. 2738 of 2025 because from the possession of the co-accused a total of 3.082 kgs of ganja has been recovered, which is below the commercial quantity, but in the present case contraband article i.e. 61.480 kgs of Ganja recovered from the vehicle, which was driven by the present applicant goes to show that the applicant involved in a illegal transportation of contraband article i.e. ganja and the applicant has failed to give any explanation for the same and it cannot be a case of false implication. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Pramod Singh Rajput, involved in connection with Crime No. 627 of 2024 registered at Police Station – Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 20(B), 22(C) & 29 of the NDPS Act, is rejected. 4 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office 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 Brijmohan