1 2025:CGHC:52823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7535 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Kumar Suryawanshi S/o Ramkishan Aged About 35 Years R/o Janjgir, P.S.- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Deenu Burman S/o Narendra Burman Aged About 24 Years R/o Janjgir, P.S.- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Saliha, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer S.B. : Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.10.2025 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 51/2025 registered at Police Station – Saliha, District – Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20 (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.06.2025, the police authorities of Police Station - Saliha, District – Sarangarh – Bilaigarh (C.G.) received a secret information from the informant and on the basis of said information the SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Police has conducted raid and seized 9 kg of Ganja from the possession of the applicants. Therefore, the alleged offence has been registered against the present applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and they are in jail since 29.06.2025. He would further submits that the mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied with in this case and the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. He submits that 9 kg of Ganja which has been seized from the possession of the applicants is much less than the commercial quantity and the same has not been recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicants. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, he submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Applicants are in jail since 29.06.2025 and there is no specific material available against the applicants in the case diary. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicants on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the Applicant No. 1 has one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, 1985 and there is no criminal antecedent of the Applicant No. 2 and the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. There is specific material available against the applicant regarding selling of the psychotropic substances. As such, the present applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the fact that the Applicant No. 1 has one criminal antecedent of under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court in the present case and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had canceled 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. 1 i.e. Dinesh Kumar Suryawanshi on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the Applicant No. 1 – Dinesh Kumar Suryawanshi, involved in Crime No. 51/2025 registered at Police Station – Saliha, District – Sarangarh – Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected at this stage. 8. Further, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the contraband article i.e. 9 Kgs of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the present Applicant No. 2, which is less than commercial quantity. Moreover, the present Applicant No. 2 has no criminal antecedents as also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and the Applicant No. 2 is in jail since 29.06.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly, Applicant No. 2 – Deenu Burman, involved in Crime No. 51/2025, registered at Police Station- Saliha, District : Sarangarh – Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, 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 4 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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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. 10.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 Dey