1 2025:CGHC:57649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9011 of 2025 Sandeep Choubey S/o Ganga Prasad Choubey Aged About 40 Years R/o Joshi Chawal Room No. 03, Lal Chakki Road, In Front Of Shyam Apartment, Ulhasnagar, P.S.- Vitthalwadi, District- Thane (Maharashtra). ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 26.11.2025 1. Applicant has filed this second bail application against the order dated 13.10.2025 whereby trial Court has rejected the bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (wrongly mentioned as Section 439 of CrPC) for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 109 of 2021 registered at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar,District- Raipur (CG) for offence punishable under ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.11.28 11:37:15 +0530 2 Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.06.2021 one truck bering No. MH 04 FP 3977 was found lying unmanned near Disha College Raipur in suspicious condition, which was informed to the concerned Police Station and upon search of truck, police seized 665 kg contraband Ganja. Initially the offence was registered against some unknown person and during the course of investigation, it revealed that registered owner of aforementioned truck is one Sanjay Suresh Chauhan. During the course of investigation, statement of Krishna Suresh Chauhan, brother of Sanjay Suresh Chauhan was recorded. He submitted notarized sale letter of truck in favour of applicant executed by Sanjay Suresh Chauhan. Registered owner of truck has been recorded to be absconding based upon production of notarized sale letter in favour of applicant he was also made an accused and he was arrested on 15.06.2022. Applicant thereafter filed an application for bail in MCRC No. 6148 of 2023, which was allowed on 29.11.2023. Applicant thereafter did not appeared before trial Court and arrest warrant was issued. 3. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Sh further submits that applicant has earlier filed an application for grant of bail bearing MCRC No. 6148 of 2023 which was allowed vide order dated 29.11.2023, pursuant there to applicant furnished bail bond before the learned trial Court on 02.01.2024. As the applicant on that date was detained in jail at Jabalpur (M.P.) order has been emailed to concerned jail and also sent by post, however applicant could not be release from jail as he was also arrested in another crime. 3 Subsequently, the case was fixed on different dates where applicant was represented by advocate and after few dates counsel engaged by him at Raipur also did not appear and arrest warrant was issued against him on 22.06.2024. She also submits that the case in which applicant was detained in jail at Jabalpur (M.P.) was concluded and he was acquitted from the charges vide judgment dated 31.10.2023 and thereafter he was sent to jail at Baithan (Singrouli), M.P. and as of now he is in jail at Baithan (Singrouli). None appearance of applicant on the date fixed by learned trial Court was not deliberate but due to some unavoidable circumstances as the applicant was in custody in jail at M.P. She lastly submits that while considering the application for grant of bail, learned trial Court have not considered this aspect and have dismissed application for grant of regular bail on merits. This Court considering entirety of the facts of the case had earlier ordered for release of applicant on bail vide 29.11.2023 Annexure A-2. Hence, applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for applicant however, after going through the documents he do not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for applicant with regard to the custody of applicant in jails at M.P. 5.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed along with this bail application. 6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and further considering the fact that first bail application for grant of bail to the applicant was ordered to release of applicant on bail vide order dated 4 29.11.2023 on merits and, therefore, in the facts of the case, I am inclined to allow the application. 7.Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) Applicant shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. (b) Applicant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. (c) If the applicant is found involved in similar offence in the future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of Bail. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Alfiza