1 2025:CGHC:6583 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8953 of 2024 1 - Mahadev Halba S/o Sukhdev Halba Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Gudnaad, P.S And Distt- Malkangiri (Odisha) 2 - Tularam Samrath S/o Budhram Samrath Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Narayanguda And Panchayat- Tondki, P.S And Distt- Malkangiri, Odisha. ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station- Chhindgarh, District- Sukma, C.G ---- Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 51/2024, registered at Police KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Station Chhindgarh District Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.09.2024 the police of police station Chhindgarh District- Sukma received a secret information from the informant, upon such information, the concerned police conducted raid and have seized 5.220 Kgs of Ganja from the joint possession of the applicants which was kept in his vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.18/P/4633 and subsequently the were arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and the contraband Ganja was not seized from the conclusive possession of the applicants. He further submits that that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. He also submits that from the possession of the applicants intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs and from the joint possession of the applicants only 5.220 kgs of Ganja has been seized. He further submits that so far as the criminal antecedent of the applicants are concerned, the applicant No. 1 has no criminal antecedent and the applicant No. 2 has one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act of the year 2013 and they are in jail since 22.09.2024 and the conclusion of the trial 3 is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel appearing for the Non- applicant/State submits that the applicant No. 1 has no criminal antecedent and the applicant No. 2 has one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act of the year 2013 from the State of Odisha and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further the quantity of contraband article i.e. 5.220 Kgs of Ganja seized from the joint possession of the applicant, which is less than commercial quantity. Hence, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and material available on record. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of contraband article seized from the joint possession of the applicants i.e. 5.220 Kgs of Ganja, so far as the criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, the applicant No.2 has one previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act of the year 2013 from the State of Odisha and he is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground 4 that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant No.2 on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant No.2– Tularam Samrath involved in Crime No. 51/2024, registered at Police Station Chhindgarh District Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, is rejected. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant No.1 and further the fact that the applicants No. 1 has no previous criminal antecedent from the State of Odisha and further the quantity of contraband article seized i.e. 5.220 Kgs of Ganja, is less than commercial quantity, thus, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court is of the view that the applicant No. 1 is entitled to be released on bail. 9. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No.1 namely, Mahadev Halba involved in involved in Crime No. 51/2024, registered at Police Station Chhindgarh District Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 5 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 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. 10. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court would make 6 an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 11. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal