1 2025:CGHC:59215 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9955 of 2025 Keshav Prasad Sahu S/o Ramu Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Kumhari, Police Station - Lawan, Dist Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Lavan, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Smt. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/12/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 370/2025 registered at Police Station Lavan, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20 B of NDPS Act. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.09.2025, the police of Police Station Lavan received secret information that the present applicant, Keshav Prasad Sahu, was keeping ganja at his house and attempting to sell it. Acting on the information, the police raided his house at Kumhari and recovered 13.848 kg of ganja kept in two bags, along with a Vivo mobile phone. The contraband was weighed on an electronic weighing machine. In his memorandum statement, the applicant stated that he had purchased the ganja from Ghanshyam Sao and was trying to sell it to co-accused Amit Katle. Consequently, an FIR under Section 20(b) NDPS Act was registered as Crime No. 370/2025, and the charge-sheet has been filed in Special Case (NDPS) No. 29/2025 pending before the Special Judge (NDPS), Balodabazar. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the contraband Ganja was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. 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 applicant and other accused persons 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 3 possession of the applciant only 13.074 kg Ganja has been seized. He later submits that one co-accused, namely, Amit Katle has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2025 in MCRC No.9503 of 2025. The applicant is in jail since 19.09.2025, the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2016 under the NDPS Act, in which, the applicant has already been acquitted vide order dated 31.03.2017, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant was found in possession of 13.848 kg of ganja at his house and was attempting to sell it while searching for customers. The ganja was seized during a police raid based on secret information, and in his memorandum statement, he admitted that he had purchased the ganja from Ghanshyam Sao and was trying to sell it to co- accused Amit Katle. Furthermore, the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2017 under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the 4 year 2016 under the NDPS Act, in which the applicant has already been acquitted vide order dated 31.03.2017 and the contraband article i.e. 13.074 kg Ganja recovered from the possession of the applicant is less than the commercial quantity, further considering the fact that one co-accused, namely, Amit Katle has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2025 in MCRC No.9503 of 2025 and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Keshav Prasad Sahu, involved in Crime No. 370/2025 registered at Police Station Lavan, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20 B of NDPS Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (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 sufficient 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil