1 2025:CGHC:5638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 332 of 2025 Rajkumar Khatarjee @ Pintu S/o Makund Khatarjee Aged About 30 Years Occupation General Store (Kirana Dukan) R/o Kabir Chowk, Khatarjee Gali Raigarh, Police Station Jutmil, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Jutmil, District – Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 429/2024, registered at Police Station – Jutmil, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a secret information was received by the Police of Police Station – Jutmil, District – Raigarh (C.G.) through the informant and on the basis of such information, the Police has seized RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 a total of 160 numbers of prohibited drugs capsul (worth Rs. 1,616/-) and 170 numbers of Ampul (worth Rs. 11,101/-) from the possession of the present co-accused, and the name of the applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of the co-accused. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested by the Police and the aforesaid offence has been registered. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is also submitted that from the possession of the co-accused, Dileep Singh Rajput, only 160 numbers of prohibited drugs capsul (worth Rs. 1,616/-) and 170 numbers of Ampul (worth Rs. 11,101/-) has been seized which is less than the commercial quantity, so far as the applicant is concerned, nothing has been recovered from him except to Rs. 600. It is further submitted that there are no any criminal antecedents of the applicants, and they are in jail since 10.10.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and there are no any criminal antecedents of the applicants. It is submitted that a total of 160 numbers of prohibited drugs capsul (worth Rs. 1,616/-) and 170 numbers of Ampul (worth Rs. 11,101/-) from the possession of the present co-accused, and the name of the applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of the co-accused, therefore, this bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 3 available on record. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the fact that from the possession of the co- accused, Dileep Singh Rajput, only 160 numbers of prohibited drugs capsul (worth Rs. 1,616/-) and 170 numbers of Ampul (worth Rs. 11,101/-) has been seized which is less than the commercial quantity, so far as the applicant is concerned, nothing has been recovered from him except to Rs. 600, the charge-sheet has been filed, and further that the applicant is in jail since 10.10.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take sometime, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant, Rajkumar Khatarjee @ Pintu involved in Crime No. 429/2024, registered at Police Station – Jutmil, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, be released on bail on their 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 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 him under 4 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 him, 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 him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce 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 Rajshekhar