1 2025:CGHC:58676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9873 of 2025 Sunil Kumar Dhalane S/o Shri Mehar Singh Dhalane Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Jabkasa, Thana Manpur, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chauki (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Thana Manpur, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chauki (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.12.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 42/2025 registered at Police Station - Manpur, District – Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chauki (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.04 14:48:25 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25.09.2025, Police has received the secrete information from the informant with the averment that the applicant kept the Ganja for the purpose of selling, so the police officers have made the search and alleged to be seized about 2.81 K.G. Ganja therefore, arrested the present applicant on the basis of doubt. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He also submits that no involvement in the alleged offence, and has been arrested merely on the basis of suspicion. The mandatory provisions under Section 50(1) of the Act were not complied with by the Investigating Officer, as the applicant was not informed of his constitutional right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or an Executive Magistrate, rendering the entire investigation defective and unsustainable for conviction. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the complainant and the Investigating Officer are the same person, resulting in a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and adversely affecting the rights of the applicant. The Trial Court further overlooked the fact that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged search and seizure. The applicant has been in jail since 25.09.2025, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case, and the applicant has one criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on 3 bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the present applicant, and also taking into account that the applicant has one criminal antecedent, that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 25.09.2025, and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant – Sunil Kumar Dhalane, involved in Crime No. 42/2025 registered at Police Station - Manpur, District – Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chauki (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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. (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 his 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 4 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 forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav