1 2025:CGHC:25488 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3956 of 2025 Saiyyad Salim S/o Saiyyad Ajeem Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Chandani Chowk, Nehru Nagar, P.S. Ganj District Raipur Chhattisgarh Present Resident Of House No. B/716, Phase-2, Indprastha Colony, Raipura, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Moudhapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.06.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.38/2025, registered at Police Station- Moudhapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, police authority received AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 information by the informant that the unknown persons have kept illegal ban medicine in their possession to sell it behind Samved Shikhar Complex Maudhapara, Raipur and police has seized Nitrazepam Tablet IP Nitrosun-10 total 122 nag tablet total weight 67.10 gram ban medicine from place of incident at open place, and thereafter prepared the seizure memo and arrested the applicant on 27.02.2025 for alleged offence publishable under section 22 (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The prosecution has made a false case against the present applicant although the ban medicine which has been seized by the police is lesser in commercial purpose. The concerned police authorities have not complied the mandatory provision of N.D.P.S. Act during investigation and registered FIR against the present applicant which is against the law. There is no seizure of ban medicine from the exclusive possession of the applicant as it was made from an open place. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, the applicant has only one criminal antecedent, which has already been undergone. Lastly, though the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.02.2025, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the 3 competent Court and the applicant has one criminal antecedent. She further submits that from the possession of applicant contraband article i.e. Nitrazepam Tablet IP Nitrosun-10 total 122 nag tablet total weight 67.10 gram ban medicine is seized, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the bail application. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent, which has already been undergone and the contraband article i.e. Nitrazepam Tablet IP Nitrosun-10 total 122 nag tablet total weight 67.10 gram ban medicine recovered from the possession of the applicant is less than the commercial quantity, further charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let applicant, Saiyyad Salim, involved in Crime No.38/2025, registered at Police Station- Moudhapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’), be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 4 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil