1 2025:CGHC:12249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 799 of 2025  Devesh Jaiswal S/o Moharlal Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o - Janpadpara Road, Ambikapur, P.S. Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja C.G. ... Applicant versus  The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate For Respondent State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 12.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Surakasha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested on 23.08.2024 in connection with Crime No. 97/2024, registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 21(C) & 22(C) of the NDPS Act. Earlier the First Bail Application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 09.12.2024. MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.03.25 10:36:51 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the Sub-Inspector Sunita Bhardwaj on 23.02.2024 at about 05:40 PM has inspected the medical store namely Dursh Medical Store, Janpadpara, District Surguja (C.G.) as per the secret information received by her regarding keeping the contraband drugs and injections in the medical store as well as in his house. The accused is supplying the said drugs and injections to the youth by giving them in small packets, accordingly, it was found that one lady was sitting in the counter which has shown her name as Jyoti Jaiswal, thereafter, the notice was given to the accused Devesh Jaiswal under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and after seeking permission from the owner of the shop and house a Panchnama was prepared in which it was found some of the medicines like NRX ALPRAZOLAM TABLETS I.P. 0.5 MG RLAM 0.5 318 tablets and NRX BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCLORIDE INJECTION I.P. BUPRIGESIC 2 ML 155 piece was seized from the shop and PHENIRAMINE MALEATE INJECTION 155 piece was also seized from the house of the applicant. Accordingly, under Sections 21(C) & 22(C) of NDPS Act was registered against both the accused. One of the applicant Smt. Jyoti Jaiswal was arrested, but the present applicant was absconded and he filed anticipatory bail which was rejected by this Court and later on he has surrendered before the Police on 23.08.2024 and since then he is in jail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the trial has not been completed for more than six months, though the accused is in jail since 23.08.2024. He would further submit that on the last date of hearing summons were issued, but only one witness has been 3 examined, thus, there is slow progress and it may take longer time, thus, he would pray for releasing the applicant on bail. 4. Per contra learned State counsel opposing the submission would submit that the applicant was involved in the commission of offence under Section 21(C) and 22(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act which is serious offence and offence against the society also. He would further submit that the trial is in progress stage, on every date the evidence is being examined, therefore, at this juncture it cannot be said that the trial is delayed. Therefore, he would submit that looking to the gravity of the offence and the quantity of the drugs which are commercial quantity, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the trial is running very slowly as only 3 witnesses have been examined whereas 17 witnesses have to be examined is being considered by this Court. The applicant has submitted copy of the order sheets to demonstrate that the proceeding is slow, thus, he would pray for releasing the applicant on bail. The order sheets of the trial Court clearly demonstrate that on the next date of hearing is 22.03.2025, 24.03.2025 and 25.03.2025, and on that days 8 witnesses have to be examined, as such it cannot be said that trial is at slow progress. The record of the case clearly demonstrates that the applicant was earlier absconding and later on when the anticipatory bail was rejected, he has surrendered before the police which has caused delay in completion of the trial, therefore, at this 4 juncture it cannot be said that the delay is attributed by the prosecution only six months have been lapsed and looking to the gravity of the offence, quantity of the drugs involved in the offence, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish