1 2025:CGHC:47827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7242 of 2025 Tikendra Sahu @ Tillu S/o Laxmi Ram Aged About 18 Years R/o Indira Nagar, Pacripara, Kurud, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.09.2025 1. This is the Second 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. 44/25 registered at Police Station – Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 22(b) of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The earlier bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS in MCRC No. 3172 of 2025 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, which was rejected vide order dated 25.04.2025. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 02.02.2025, the police received ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.19 14:20:58 +0530 2 information from a mukhbir that three persons traveling in a Honda City Car bearing registration No. CG 04/HA/6401 were illegally selling prohibited substances. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a search of the applicants. From the possession of Tikendra Kumar Sahu @ Tillu, 18 packets containing a total of 144 pieces of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus, along with one country-made firearm (.315 bore), five live cartridges, Rs. 700/-, and one old Vivo mobile phone were recovered. From the possession of Jayprakash Sahu @ Golu, 12 packets containing a total of 96 pieces of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus, along with one knife, Rs. 500/-, and one old Vivo mobile phone were seized. From the possession of Gulshan Kumar Sahu, 6 packets containing a total of 48 pieces of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus, along with one knife, Rs. 220/-, and one old Vivo mobile phone were recovered. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, the concerned police authorities filed the charge-sheet. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that this is Second Bail application, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits. He submits that the contraband article which has been seized from the possession of the applicant is less than the commercial quantity. He also submits that the personal search of the applicant was carried out by the police authorities without serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and no option was given to the applicant to be searched before a Magistrate. This vitiates the entire proceedings, as the search was conducted by the concerned police officer, not in the presence of a Magistrate, and no information was provided to the applicant regarding his statutory right to be searched before a Magistrate. He further submits that in order to prove a case under Section 22(B) of the NDPS Act, it is the duty of the prosecution to 3 establish that the contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the applicant, which, in the present case, has not been proved. He submits that from perusal of the order sheets shows that, till date, no prosecution witness has been examined despite there being no fault attributable to the applicant or his counsel, and the case is being unnecessarily adjourned due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses. He submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 02.02.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the applicant, submitting that the first bail application of the present applicant was earlier rejected due to his four criminal antecedents, which are still pending. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as earlier this Court rejected the first bail application of the present applicant due to his four criminal antecedents, which are still pending, therefore, I do not find any good ground for granting bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Tikendra Sahu @ Tillu, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 44/25 registered at Police Station – Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 22(b) of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible 4 within a period of four months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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 Abhishek