1 2025:CGHC:58598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9775 of 2025 Manishankar Banik @ Mittu S/o Parimal Banik Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Silati, P S - Umarkot, District : Nabarangapur , Orissa. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Farasgaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.12.2025 1. This is the 昀椀rst bail application 昀椀led 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. 165/2024 registered at Police Station Farasgaon, District : Kondagaon (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.11.2024, the jurisdictional police received secret information that a person was transporting Ganja on a motorcycle. Acting on this intel, the police intercepted a RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 vehicle and apprehended one Subrat Rai, who was found in possession of 23.68 kg of Ganja. In his memorandum statement, he disclosed that he, along with Jaidev, Mithu, Saurabh Malik, Devashish Balimela, Sujay Haldhar and Katappa Mama, used to procure Ganja from Umarkot, and thereafter he, along with Dipankar Vyapari and Sushankar Vyapari, used to supply it to Raju Yadav and Ajay Choudhary in Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, the concerned police authorities 昀椀led the charge sheet. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any o昀昀ence as alleged by the police of P.S. Farasgaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. It is submitted that no contraband Ganja has been seized from the possession of the present applicant, and he has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of co- accused Subrat Rai, which is inadmissible in evidence. It is further submitted that, as per the memorandum statement, the co-accused merely stated that he along with certain other persons, including the present applicant, was independently involved in transporting Ganja purchased from Umarkot. Such a statement does not establish that the applicant had any role in the present crime or that he assisted the co-accused in the alleged transportation of Ganja in this case. He additionally submits that a similarly placed co-accused, namely Dipankar Vyapari, whose bail application (MCRC No. 5713/2025) was earlier rejected by this Hon’ble High Court on 22.07.2025, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has been granted bail 3 in SLP (Criminal) No. 12391/2025 vide order dated 19.11.2025. A copy of the order dated 19.11.2025 passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 12391/2025 is 昀椀led as Annexure A-4. He further submits that the applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act in which he has been acquitted and he has been in jail since 30.12.2024 and 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 State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submit that the charge- sheet has been 昀椀led in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. She further submits that 23.68 kg Ganja seized from the possession of the present applicant along with co-accused person, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 that in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been 昀椀led before the competent Court, the fact that no contraband has been seized from the possession of the applicant and his implication rests solely on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which is not a substantive piece of evidence, and further, looking to the fact that a similarly placed co-accused, namely Dipankar Vyapari, whose bail application was earlier rejected by this Court, 4 has subsequently been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 12391/2025 vide order dated 19.11.2025, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant stands on the same footing as the said co-accused, further the applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act in which he has already been acquitted and he is in jail since 30.12.2024, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicant – Manishankar Banik @ Mittu, involved in Crime No. 165/2024 registered at Police Station Farasgaon, District : Kondagaon (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on 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 昀椀le an undertaking to the e昀昀ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 昀椀xed 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 昀椀xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su昀케cient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under 5 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 昀椀xed 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 昀椀xed 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 su昀케cient 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. O昀케ce is directed to send a certi昀椀ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan