1 2025:CGHC:50975 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8094 of 2025 Harishchandra Yadav S/o Bukechand Yadav, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Khutapani, P.S. Bagbahar, At Present R/o Khadamacha, Bagbahar, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jaynagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.) … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.10.2025 1. This is the Third bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 26/2025 registered at Police Station – Jaynagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Earlier two bail applications of the applicant has been rejected by PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.10.14 10:37:32 +0530 2 this Court vide order dated 17.04.2025 and 08.09.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 2954/2025 and 7140/2025, respectively on the ground that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act. 3. As per prosecution story in brief, is that, on 21.01.2025, the Police of Police Station, Jaynagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) has allegedly recovered 15.824 kgs. of Ganja from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Sanjay Yadav. Accordingly the alleged offence has been registered and the accused persons have been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in jail since 28.02.2025. He further submits that till date no prosecution witness has been examined before the trial Court, therefore the trial will take considerable time for its conclusion. He also submits that the alleged recovered cannabis, is less than the commercial quantity. He further submits that the co-accused, Sanjay Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 passed in MCRC No. 6363/2025. He also submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits the applicant is having one previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act which shows that he is a habitual offender. As such, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the case diary. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the third bail application filed by the applicant and earlier two bail applications of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2025 and 08.09.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 2954/2025 and 7140/2025, respectively on the ground that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act which is still pending. Furthermore, the co-accused, who has already been granted bail by this Court, was granted bail on the ground that he had no previous criminal antecedents. In addition, 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, and since no new ground has been raised in this bail application to entertain the same, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant - Harishchandra Yadav filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, involved in Crime No. 26/2025 registered at Police Station – Jaynagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 4 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti