1 2025:CGHC:3716 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 503 of 2025 Siddharth Rai S/o Mukesh Rai Aged About 20 Years R/o Vishal Nagar Main Gate Police Station Telibandha District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station Civil Line Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms Maya Chaturvijani, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.01.2025 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 591/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 16.11.2024, the police of Police Station Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) received secret information and on the basis of the secret information, conducted raid near Durga Nagar, Canal Road, Raipur and recovered illicit drugs M.D.M.A total 03.88 gram from the accused persons thereafter, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 registered an FIR bearing Crime No. 591/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 22(B) of NDPS Act against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submits that he alleged drugs has not been seized from the conscious possession of the applicant and allegedly the police recovered from open place and the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police in the false case. She further submits that Section 50 and 52(A) of NDPS Act have not been followed by the police while registering the FIR against the present applicant, which is the mandatory provision and as per the story of prosecution, the illicit contraband drugs has been seized from the pocket of the accused persons. This is matter of personal search but investigating ofÏcer did not follow the mandatory provision regarding Section 50 of NDPS Act. The seized contraband drug is not more than commercial quantity as per the circular published by the Government of India. Seized article falls in intermediate quantity, hence Section 37 of NDPS act is not attracted in this case and the applicant is in jail since 16.11.2024 and 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 Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the 3 quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the applicant along with co-accused, is less than commercial quantity. 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 the present applicant has no criminal antecedent and the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the applicant along with co-accused, is less than commercial quantity and the applicant is in jail since 16.11.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant –Siddharth Rai, involved in Crime No. 591/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on 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 4 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 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal