1 2025:CGHC:57799 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9665 of 2025 Mukesh Yadav S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Imlibhata Mahasamund, P.S. Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Malay Jain, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/11/2025 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.367/2025 registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for offence under Sections 21 (B), 22 (B) of The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.11.27 19:16:08 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that after getting the secret information, the raid was performed and 16 Strips of Medicine (8 Capsules in each strips), i.e. Spas-Trascen-Plus Capsules were found from the possession of Applicant. The components of the Medicine are Dicyciemine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride and Acetaminophen Capsule. Total quantity of Narcotic Drugs are as per the impugned order is 49.280 mg (49 Grams 280 Miligrams). Hence the F.I.R. was lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the contraband article 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 the contraband article seized from the applicant i.e. 49.280 mg is intermediate quantity. He submits that charge sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 28/08/2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He would submit that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent under the IPC. He further submits that there are three accused persons in this case including the present applicant and from the present applicant 49.280 mg contraband article has been seized which is intermediate quantity and from the house of the co-accused 3 person namely Raj Chandrakar the contraband article seized was above the commercial quantity. 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, submission of learned counsel for the parties, further considering the fact that from the present applicant 49.280 mg contraband article has been seized which is intermediate quantity, case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the co-accused person namely Raj Chandrakar from whose house the contraband article seized was above the commercial quantity, charge sheet has been filed and also considering the fact that trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant- Mukesh Yadav, involved in Crime No.367/2025 registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for offence under Sections 21 (B), 22 (B) of The Narcotics 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 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. 4 (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. (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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri