1 2025:CGHC:9336 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8211 of 2024 1 - Mahesh Ankel S/o Shravan Ankel, Aged About 32 Years R/o Dhamalipura, Post Sulgaon P.S. Harangaon, District - Dewas (M.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kondagaon District - Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. T.S. Sahu, Panel Lawyer SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 24/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. 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.116/2022 registered at Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. 3. The first application of the application was dismissed as withdrawn vide the SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.02.25 11:42:50 +0530 2 order dated 14.6.2023 passed in MCRC No.3741/2023 with liberty to file afresh after examination of the seizure witnesses. 4. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.3.2022, the applicant was found in illicit possession of 35 Kg of contraband Ganja. Hence, the aforesaid offence has been registered. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He would further submit that the applicant has been in jail since 16.12.2022. The material/seizure witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the provisions of the NDPS Act has not been complied with. Hence, considering all these aspects, the applicant may be enlarged on bail 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. He would submit that the applicant is a resident of the State of Madhya Pradesh and 35 Kg of contraband Ganja was recovered from the vehicle - Swift Dezire. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that the present applicant was the driver of the said vehicle owned by Roshni Parmar. He would submit that only because the material/seizure witnesses have turned hostile, no case for grant of bail is made out. He would place reliance on the matter of Rizwan Khan and Mohit Kumar reported in (2020) 9 SCC 627. He would submit that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracts. He would further submit that in the matter of Bharat Aambale Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (Order dated 6.1.2025 passed in CRA No.250/2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the Court regarding both recovery and possession of the contraband and from the accused, then even in such cases, the Court can record a conviction. The said case was relied upon by this Court in CRA No.217 of 2022 (Shahbaz 3 Ahmed Seikh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh – Order dated 29.1.2025). Hence, learned counsel for the State submits that the present is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering that the commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, therefore, rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracts and further considering the manner and mode in which the contraband has been recovered, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. 9. This Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna