1 2025:CGHC:60598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10292 of 2025 Abhishek Sahu S/o Dilip Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o In Front Of Police Line, Near Honda Showroom, Nehru Nagar, P.S. Kotwali, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Roshishek Verma, Ishaan Singh Rathore, Ashutosh Shirvastava and Ravi Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.12.2025 1. This is the third bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 735/2024 registered at Police Station - Tikrapara, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21 (b), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 25 of Arms Act. 2. Earlier two bail applications of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 and 26.06.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 1358/2025 and 3396/2025. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.15 19:57:19 +0530 2 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.), upon receiving secret information, arrested Shubham Soni and registered a case under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, vide Crime No. 735/2024 and FIR No. 0735 dated 23/09/2025. During the investigation, Shubham Soni stated that he had purchased the seized pistol from Lokesh Agrawal, which led to the addition of charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The FIR further alleges that Shubham Soni was in possession of narcotic substances worth Rs.5,20,000/-, including 31.88 grams of charas, 98 MDMA tablets weighing 45.08 grams, a pistol, and other incriminating items. The present applicant, Abhishek Sahu, was made an accused solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of Shubham Soni. He was arrested on 23/09/2024; however, it is pertinent to mention that no contraband substances or arms were seized from the applicant’s possession, nor was he involved in the transportation of the alleged contraband. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the first bail application was rejected on merits by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 21.02.2025, and the second bail application of the applicant was also rejected on merits vide order dated 26.06.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Apex Court; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2025 passed in SLP (Cr.) No.(s) 11693/2025. It is further submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 23.09.2024 and, out of 38 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined till date. Moreover, the name of the applicant surfaced only in the memorandum statement of the co-accused. The contraband articles, total quantity of 31.88 grams of charas and 98 MDMA tablets weighing 45.08 grams, were recovered 3 from the co-accused Shubham Soni, and the quantity recovered is above the commercial quantity. Therefore, the present third bail application has been filed on the ground that the applicant has already been in custody for more than one year and three months and is the sole breadwinner of his family. Further, a similarly situated co-accused, Lokesh Agrawal alias Sonu, has been granted regular bail by this Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 05.02.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8192/2024. Pertinently, the present case of the applicant is similar to that of Lokesh Agrawal alias Sonu, and no contraband was seized from the applicant’s possession. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1779, has observed that merely because two accused were apprehended simultaneously and were walking side by side, and both were carrying narcotic drugs concealed on their bodies, such a coincidental circumstance would not lead to an inference that either accused had knowledge of the contraband carried by the other. The Court further held that suspicion cannot take the place of proof, and that if the prosecution seeks to establish conspiracy and club the recoveries from two accused persons, it must adduce positive evidence in support thereof, which cannot be substituted by mere suspicion. A copy of the order dated 05.08.2025 is annexed herewith as Annexure A/7. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the first bail application was rejected on merits by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 21.02.2025, and the second bail application of the applicant was also rejected on merits vide order dated 26.06.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Apex Court; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 4 11.08.2025 passed in SLP (Cr.) No.(s) 11693/2025, further, the contraband articles, total quantity of 31.88 grams of charas and 98 MDMA tablets weighing 45.08 grams, were recovered from the co-accused Shubham Soni, and the quantity recovered is above the commercial quantity Hence, this bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the third bail application of the applicant and the first bail application was rejected on merits by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 21.02.2025, and the second bail application of the applicant was also rejected on merits vide order dated 26.06.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Apex Court; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2025 passed in SLP (Cr.) No.(s) 11693/2025. Further, the name of the applicant surfaced only in the memorandum statement of the co-accused. The contraband articles, 31.88 grams of charas and 98 MDMA tablets weighing 45.08 grams, were recovered from the co-accused Shubham Soni, and the quantity recovered is above the commercial quantity, moreover, the applicant has been languishing in jail since 23.09.2024 and, out of 38 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined till date. 8. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Vigin K. Varghese (Special Leave Petition (Cri.) Nos.7768 of 2025 and 11097 of 2025) decided on 13/11/2025 has observed that in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for bail. 9. Considering the fact that the first bail application was rejected on merits 5 by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 21.02.2025, and the second bail application of the applicant was also rejected on merits vide order dated 26.06.2025, aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Apex Court, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2025 passed in SLP (Cr.) No.(s) 11693/2025, further the fact that trial is in progress and also in the light of observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) (supra) that in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for bail, therefore I do not find any good ground to entertain this second bail application. 10. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant- Abhishek Sahu filed under Section 483 of BNSS, involved Crime No. 735/2024 registered at Police Station - Tikrapara, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21 (b), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 25 of Arms Act, is rejected. 11. The office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti