1 2025:CGHC:55216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8089 of 2025 Shani Vishwakarma S/o Rajkumar Vishwakarma Aged About 18 Years R/o Patelpara, Police Station- Chandani, Biharpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Ghandhinagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Shubhra Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer S.B. : Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/11/2025 1. This is the first 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. 388/2025 registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District – Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that police authorities of Police Station - Gandhinagar, District – Sarguja (C.G.) were patrolling and checking passengers and they received secret information from the informant alleging that the applicant was possessing contraband Ganja was traveling \and on the basis of said information, police have conducted raid and seized 4.980 2 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of the applicant, thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in jail since 11.07.2025. He would further submits that the mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied with in this case and the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. He submits that the contraband seized from the possession of the applicant is within the intermediary quantity and not commercial quantity. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, he submits that there are no antecedents against him. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents for the provisions under the NDPS Act, 1985. She submits that charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. As such, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the fact that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents for the provisions under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the charge-sheet has been 昀椀led before the competent Court in the present case and also 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, this Court is of the opinion that is not a 昀椀t case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Shani Vishwakarma, involved in Crime No. 388/2025 registered at Police Station - Gandhinagar, District – Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 3 1985, is rejected at this stage. 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 Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY