1 2025:CGHC:8677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 682 of 2025 1 - Kondru Kalyan S/o Kondru Nageshwar Rao Aged About 22 Years R/o Kobbripad, P.S. Mulakpalli, District Badradi Kottagudem Telangana 2 - Madkam Pawan Kalyan S/o Madkam Venkateshwar Aged About 24 Years R/o Kobbripad, P.S. Mulakpalli, District Badradi Kottagudem Telangana ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Konta, District Sukma (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 24/2024, registered at Police Station Konta District Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 06.10.2024 as per secret information received from the informant that two accused persons from the State of Odisha are going to Telangana on Motorcycle Platina with having some Narcotic substances and on the basis of such information, the Police of Police Station Konta intercepted the motorcycle, conducted raid and have seized 5.120 Kg of Ganja from the joint possession of the applicants. Therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that from the possession of the present 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 for Ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 Kgs and from the joint possession of the present applicants, only 05.120 Kg of Ganja has been seized. He further 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 2024 and they are languishing in jail since 06.10.2024 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and so 3 far as the criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, the applicant No.1 has no criminal antecedent and the applicant No. 2 namely Madkam Pawan Kalyan, has one previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act of the year 2024 and further the quantity of contraband article seized from the joint possession of the applicants i.e. 5.120 Kgs. of Ganja, which is less than commercial quantity. Accordingly, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicants and further the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, the applicant No.2 namely Madkam Pawan Kalyan, has one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act of the year 2024 as such he is a habitual offender and the quantity of contraband article seized from the joint possession of the applicants i.e. 5.120 Kgs of Ganja, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier 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 is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant No. 2 on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No. 2 -Madkam Pawan Kalyan, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS involved in Crime No. 24/2024, 4 registered at Police Station Konta District Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, is rejected. 6. Whereas the applicant No. 1 is concerned, he has no previous criminal antecedent and further the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the joint possession of the applicants i.e. 5.120 Kgs of Ganja, which is less than commercial quantity and also considering the fact that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and the applicant No.1 is in jail since 06.10.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant No. 1, namely, Kondru Kalyan is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No. 1 – Kondru Kalyan involved in Crime No. 24/2024, registered at Police Station Konta District Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(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 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. 5 (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. 8. Office 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