1 2025:CGHC:50943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1570 of 2025 • Sajan Choudhary S/o Mulchand Choudhary, Aged About 30 Years R/o Jarwahna Tola, Village- Atariya, Post- Rampur, Police Station Amlai, Tahsil Budhar, District Shahdol (M.P.) ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gourela, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Ms. Maya Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Hari Om Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 13.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 297/2024, registered at Police Station – Gourela, District- Gourela- Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 20(b), 29 (II-C) of NDPS Act. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in short, is that on 02.09.2024, the police was informed by informant that co-accused Uday Chouhan and Tulsi Sharma are transporting psychotropic substances in a vehicle bearing registration No.M.P-18 BB-2530 from Odisha to VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.10.15 17:58:42 +0530 2 Anuppur via Bialspur-Gourela. On the basis of aforesaid information, the police conducted raid near Vilage – Harratola main road near bridge turning and caught the vehicle, in which two persons wee sitting and upon interrogation, they disclosed their name as Uday Chouhan and Tulsi Sharma. The police recovered 160 Kg psychotropic substance Ganja from the joint possession of the accused persons. The police of police Station – Gourela, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). Upon investigation the co-accused persons were arrested and present applicant was declared absconded and after completion of the entire investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the presently the case is pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that only on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused, applicant has falsely been arrayed in crime in question. She further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of the said village and was never absconding. The applicant had no knowledge that any offence had been registered against him. An application for anticipatory bail was filed, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court. She further argued that the applicant’s name has been implicated in the case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which, in law, cannot be used as evidence against the applicant and the evidence collected by the prosecution does not indicate any direct or indirect involvement of the applicant, except for the memorandum statement of the co-accused. Therefore, she prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, submitting that FIR of the incident was registered on 02.09.2024 and the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant as an absconder and charge sheet was filed showing him as absconding. He further submits that the applicant has been absconding since the date of registration of the offence. He also submits that applicant is a resident of the State of Madhya Pradesh and as per the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons they were work for the applicant for the illegal trafficking of the contraband articles and investigation against him is ongoing, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 7. Recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Anarul SK v. The State of West Bengal {SLP (Crl.) No(s). 12621/2024 has observed that the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) is a very serious issue. 8. In the light of observation made by the Supreme Court in Anarul SK (supra) and, Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma {(2014) 2 SCC 171} (Supra) I do not find any good ground to entertain this anticipatory 4 bail application. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Sajan Choudhary, involved in Crime No.297/2024, registered at Police Station – Gourela, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 20(b), 29 (II-C) of NDPS Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali