1 2025:CGHC:1585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 139 of 2025 Arman Khan Urf Raja Pathan S/o Rahman Khan Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Jawaharpara, Balod, District - Balod, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. - Balod, District - Balod, C.G. … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.01.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 515/2024 registered at Police Station Balod, District - Balod, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Police of Police Station Balod, District – Balod, (C.G.) has received secret information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid and seized 1.507 Kgs of contraband ganja from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, FIR was lodged against the present applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.10 20:24:51 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and 1.507 Kgs of contraband ganja was not recovered from the possession of the present applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents, out of which, 01 case is under the NDPS and 01 case is under the Gambling Act in Balod, copy of the said case obtained from the e-court software is marked and annexed as Annexure A/2 in this application. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 18.10.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He also submits that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents under the NDPS, out of which, 01 case is in Balod, and 01 case is in Rajnandgaon. He further stated that that the said mistake occurred because, as pointed out by the counsel for the applicant, the name of the Police Station was wrongly mentioned. The correct name of the Police Station is Rajnandgaon, instead of Balod, where the applicant has one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. As such, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the fact that the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, out of which, 01 case is in Balod, and 01 case is in Rajnandgaon, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. 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 that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Arman Khan Urf Raja Pathan, involved in Crime No. 515/2024 registered at Police Station Balod, District - Balod, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 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 Rahul Dewangan