1 2025:CGHC:35558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4610 of 2025 1. Lachhaman Bhatara S/o Kamlu Bhatara Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Dongri P.S.- Kotpad, District Karaput, (Odisha) 2. Pagnu Samarth S/o Kartik Samarth Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Dongri, P.S. Kotpad, District Karaput (Odisha) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Ganj, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 112/2025 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station Ganj, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.24 11:28:25 +0530 2 District Raipur, received a secret information from the informant and on the said information conducted a raid and seized 7.560 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of the applicant No. 01 and 10.650 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of the applicant No. 02, thereafter, the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicants. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits 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 applicants intermediate quantity of Ganja was 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 No. 01 and applicant No. 02, 7.560 Kgs and 10.650 Kgs respectively. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 02.05.2025 and 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, 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 applicants have no criminal antecedents. He further submits that from the joint possession of the applicants contraband article i.e. 18 Kgs of Ganja was seized , therefore, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 3 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, that from the possession of applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2, contraband articles of Ganja, 7.560 kg and 10.650 kg respectively, were seized, which is less than the commercial quantity; moreover, the present applicants have no criminal antecedents. Also considering the fact that the charge sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and the applicants are in jail since 02.05.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case 7. Let the Applicants - Lachhaman Bhatara and Pagnu Samarth, involved in Crime No. 112/2025 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, 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. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek