1 2025:CGHC:50977 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8085 of 2025 Ramraj S/o Mohanraj Aged About 20 Years R/o Kuthurtal, P.S. Lalpur, District Mungeli C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Jai Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13/10/2025 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 79/2025 registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.02.2025, Inspector Akhilesh Kumar Vaishnav of Police Station Lorami received secret information that a Mahindra car (CG 12 AF 3456) was transporting illegal ganja from Village Kudhurtal to Village Khekatra. Acting on the information, the police team along with witnesses reached the spot and intercepted the vehicle. Two persons, namely, Raju Sahu (driver) and Ramraj (co-accused) were found inside the car. After informing them of their rights under Section 50 NDPS Act, their personal search was conducted, which yielded nothing. However, upon searching the vehicle, 03 plastic sacks containing 86.250 kg of ganja (commercial quantity) worth approximately Rs.8,50,000/- were recovered from the possession of co-accused Raju Sahu. As the accused failed to produce any valid documents for possession of the contraband, both were arrested and a case was registered as Crime No. 79/2025 under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against both accused for illegal transportation of commercial quantity of ganja. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, having no nexus with the alleged incident. She further submits that the prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, and the concerned police station did not conduct a proper and fair investigation before lodging the FIR against the 3 applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated, as the car in which the said contraband substance was being carried was driven by the co-accused, Raju Sahu and present applicant had only taken a lift from the said co-accused. She contended that though initially when a bail application was filed by the guardian of the applicant/accused before the Juvenile Justice Board, after the submission of the social investigation report, the applicant/accused was released on bail, but later on, after completion of the investigation, when the Lorami Police filed the charge sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board, the Board, after verification, found that the applicant/accused was around 19 years old on the date of the incident, and he was sent again to the Observation Home, Bilaspur. She contended that the applicant is an illiterate person, he has never gone to school, the Dakhil Kharij produced by the prosecution is of some other person and the applicant is minor which is evident from his Aadhar Card. The applicant is in jail since 15.02.2025 and the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, she prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that initially, when the applicant/accused Ramraj was arrested and produced before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli, he was treated as a juvenile and sent to the Juvenile Observation Home. Subsequently, during the course of the proceedings, when the charge-sheet was filed before the Juvenile 4 Justice Board and an inquiry into the applicant’s age was conducted on the basis of the documents produced (including school records and other age-related evidence), the Board found that on the date of the incident, the applicant/accused was approximately 19 years old, as a result of said observation, the applicant/accused was transferred from the Observation Home to District Jail, Mungeli, and was treated as an adult accused for the purpose of further trial proceedings. He also submits that the quantity of contraband article i.e. 86.250 kg of ganja recovered from the car in which the applicant and co-accused were travelling and found in carrying the same is much above the commercial quantity as notified under the NDPS Act and as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it prima facie appears that the contraband article seized i.e. 03 plastic sacks containing 86.250 kg of ganja (commercial quantity) worth approximately Rs.8,50,000/- which is much above the commercial quantity as per the Schedule given under the NDPS Act from the car in which the applicant and co-accused were travelling and found in carrying the same and on a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the applicant regarding involvement of the applicant, it is stated that the applicant had merely taken a lift from the co-accused, however, no material or evidence has been produced in support of this contention. So far as the issue of minority of the applicant is concerned, it is evident from 5 the impugned order passed by the trial Court that though initially the applicant was released on bail considering him as a juvenile, but upon verification of the school records and other age-related evidence, the Board found him to be about 19 years of age on the date of incident and, accordingly, the applicant/accused was transferred from the Observation Home to District Jail, Mungeli, and was treated as an adult, thus, the plea of minority is not supported by the records. 7. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the quantity of contraband involved, and the role attributed to the applicant indicate prima facie involvement of the applicant and co-accused in the illicit trafficking of narcotic substances, as such, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present bail application. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Ramraj, involved in Crime No. 79/2025 registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) 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. 10. 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 Akhil