1 2025:CGHC:31731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5302 of 2025 Sahdev Kar Son Of Nanda Gopal Kar Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Mv-42, Malkangiri, District Malkangiri (Odisha) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Purur, District Balod (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Ritu Rani Mukharji, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mukesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. This is the Third bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 105/2024 registered at Police Station- Purur, District - Balod (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Earlier first bail and second bail application of the applicant were rejected by this Court being MCRC No. 9118/2024 and MCRC No.3459/2025, vide order dated 13.02.2025 and 05.05.2025 respectively, on merits. Hence this is third bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that as per secret information received from the informant and on the basis of such information, the Police of Police Station-Purur District-Balod (C.G.) have seized 21 Kgs of contraband article i.e. Ganja from the possession of the applicant, thereafter aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that this is the Third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, the earlier first and second bail application of the applicant were rejected by this Court on merits and the new ground for filing of the third bail application is that after rejection of second bail application, some important prosecution witnesses and material witnesses have been examined and they have not support the case of prosecution. She further submits that the alleged contraband was not seized from the conscious possession of the applicant and allegedly, the police recovered it from open place and the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police in the false case. Accordingly, she prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submit that the earlier first and second bail application of the applicant have already been rejected by this Court on merits further the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, is much above the commercial quantity. Accordingly. The present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 7. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as the material witness and other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, the same cannot be a good ground for releasing the applicant on bail as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the third bail application filed on the behalf of the applicant, the first bail and second bail application of the applicant were rejected by this Court being MCRC No. 9118/2024 and MCRC No.3459/2025, vide order dated 13.02.2025 and 05.05.2025 respectively, on merits further the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, is much above the commercial quantity and the applicant has failed to give a plausible explanation with regard to the same and the applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the Third bail application of the applicant – Sahdev Kar, filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., involved in Crime No. 105/2024 registered at Police Station- Purur, District - Balod (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 10. Needless to say that the trial concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. 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 Kunal