1 2025:CGHC:22446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4152 of 2025 • Murlidhar Sao S/o Late Padumlal Sao Aged About 52 Years R/o Kodatarai, P.S. - Jutemil, District - Raigarh (C.G.), (Surname Sahu Is Wrongly Mention In Order Sheet) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. - Jutemil, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant/State For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State/Non- Applicant : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.05.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 86/2025 registered at Police Station Jutemil, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.3.2024 the police authority on receiving secret information that the applicant is in possession of SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.05.29 17:59:40 +0530 2 3.870 kilograms of Contraband ganja. After receiving above information police authority seized the aforesaid ganja from the bag of the applicant. There after the Police authority has registered a case against the applicant and filed the charge sheet. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the contraband Ganja was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. He further submits that that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. He also submits that from the possession of the applicant intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs and from the possession of the applicant only 3.870 kg Ganja has been seized. He later submits that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent of similar nature and the same has been disposed of and he is in jail since 24.03.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular 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 competent Court and also endorse the said submission that the applicant has one criminal antecedent of similar nature. He further submits that from the possession 3 of the applicant contraband article i.e. 3.870 kg of Ganja is seized, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant has one criminal antecedent and the same is disposed of and the contraband article i.e. 3.870 kg Ganja recovered from the possession of the applicant is less than the commercial quantity and the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Murlidhar Sao involved in Crime No. 86/2025 registered at Polie Station Jutemil, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on his furnishing 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 sufficient cause, 4 the trial court may proceed against him 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 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 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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment. 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 $iddhant