1 2025:CGHC:20510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3466 of 2025 Mahesh Sahu S/o Late Chhedi Sahu Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village- Nagfeni, Police Station- Sisai, District- Murgu Gumla (Jharkhand) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/05/2025 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. 855/2024 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) for offence under Section 18(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of information received through informant, the Police of Police Station, Tikrapara has allegedly recovered 3.904 kg. contraband substance Opium (Afim) from the possession of co-accused persons and they have been arrested. The police has recorded the memorandum statement of co- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 accused Jasid, who stated that he has purchased the Opium from the present applicant. On the basis of memorandum of said Jasid, the present applicant has been arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the alleged contraband substance Opium (Afim) has not been recovered from exclusive possession of the present applicant and the present applicant has been implicated in this case only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Jasid, from whom the said contraband article has been recovered and he is in jail since 12.03.2025 and the applicant has two criminal antecedents of similar nature which has been explained in the bail application of para No. 4(A) and the 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 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 further the quantity of contraband article (opium) which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused i.e. 3.904 kg of Opium, is more than commercial quantity and the applicant has two criminal antecedents of similar nature 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. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent 3 Court and the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused, is more than commercial quantity and after taking memorandum statement of the co-accused, he stated that he has purchased the said contraband article from the present applicant further the present applicant has two criminal antecedents of similar nature and he is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. 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 it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Mahesh Sahu involved in Crime No. 855/2024 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) for offence under Section 18(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. 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 Kunal