1 2025:CGHC:48607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7642 of 2025 Hajrat Ali S/o Late Haidar Ali Aged About 31 Years R/o Of Ward No. 08, Village Jamdi, Police Station Anuppur, District- Anuppur, ( M.P. ). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Gourela, District- Gourela- Pendra - Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. … Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.09.2025 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. 14/2025 registered at Police Station – Gaurela, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii-C) r/w Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.01.2025, the concerned police received secret information regarding the illegal transportation of contraband. Acting upon the said information, the police proceeded to Village Jobatola, where they intercepted a RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. CG-13-9615, in which the accused persons were transporting 73.500 kg of contraband. It was further found that another co-accused was piloting the said vehicle in a Breeza car bearing registration No. MP-18-ZD-6287. Upon being asked, the accused persons failed to produce any valid or legal documents authorizing the transportation of the contraband. Thereafter, following the due procedure of law, the police seized the contraband and registered a crime against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant was merely travelling to Anuppur at the request of the co-accused for the purpose of collecting an amount of Rs. 8,000/- and had no knowledge of any illegal contraband being carried in the vehicle. It is further submitted that the alleged contraband article was not recovered from the physical possession of the applicant, nor has any statement been made by the co-accused in his memorandum implicating the applicant. The applicant is neither the driver nor the owner of the said vehicle, and the only allegation against him is his presence in it at the relevant time. He also submits that he has no any previous criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 16.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present case involves the recovery of 73.500 kg of Ganja, which is much 3 above the commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. As such, the stringent provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act apply, and unless the twin conditions are satisfied, bail cannot be granted. The applicant was found present in the vehicle carrying the contraband, and at this stage, it cannot be said that he had no role in the offence. Under Section 54 NDPS Act, a presumption arises against the accused, which he has to rebut during trial. She also submits that bail application of the other co-accused person namely, Abul Hasan, has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 7148/2025 vide order dated 09.09.2025, and as such, the offence is of a serious nature, involving large-scale trafficking, and two co-accused are still absconding, creating a strong risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the offence in question pertains to the illegal transportation of 73.500 kg of Ganja, which is much above the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act. The facts and materials collected during investigation further indicate that this is not an isolated incident but a part of organized criminal activity involving multiple persons working together for large-scale trafficking of narcotic substances. The evidence on record shows that the applicant was present in the vehicle transporting the contraband along with other co-accused, and at this stage, his contention of having no 4 involvement cannot be accepted. It is also noted that the vehicle used for transporting the contraband does not belong to the present applicant, which further raises serious suspicion regarding the organized nature of the offence and the applicant’s role therein. In view of Section 54 NDPS Act, a statutory presumption arises against the accused, which he has failed to rebut at this stage. Furthermore, bail application of the other co-accused person namely, Abul Hasan, has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 7148/2025 vide order dated 09.09.2025. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the organized manner in which it has been committed and the quantity of contraband involved, further it cannot be a case of false implication. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Hajrat Ali, involved in Crime No. 14/2025 registered at Police Station – Gaurela, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii-C) r/w Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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 Rahul Dewangan