1 2025:CGHC:58371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9692 of 2025 1 - Junaid Akhtar S/o Jahid Akhtar Aged About 29 Years R/o Baijnath Para, Near Zee Mahasale, Ward No. 41, Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Vidhi Agrawal D/o Mahesh Agrawal Aged About 27 Years R/o Agrawal House Dalepara, P.S. Town P C O, Disttict Sambalpur (Orissa) Present R/o 501, Aditya Heights, Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/12/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 222/2025 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 22(C) and 29 r/w Section 22 (C) of NDPS Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.03.2025, Ganj Police received information and intercepted co-accused persons near Devendra Nagar Chowk, under the over-bridge on the road leading to Raipur Railway Station. From their possession, 27.58 grams of MDMA, a prohibited psychotropic substance, was seized. Based on the memorandum statements of the co-accused, a larger drug trafficking network was uncovered, in which the present applicants/accused were also implicated. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against them. The case record shows that the accused persons, along with other co- accused, were allegedly involved in procuring and selling MDMA in Raipur as part of a criminal conspiracy. They have been charged under Sections 22(C) and 29 read with 22(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in offence in question. She further submits that the identically situated co-accused persons, namely Sohel Khan and Rishi Tandon, from whom no seizure was made, as well as the co- accused Deep Dhanoriya, from whose possession seizure was made, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders 3 dated 19.11.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 8709/2025, 8720/2025 and 9259/2025. The applicant, Junaid Akhtar is in jail since 03.09.2025 and applicant, Vidhi Agrawal is in jail since 04.09.2025, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicants are alleged to be part of the same drug-trafficking network in which 27.58 grams of MDMA was recovered from co-accused persons. Based on the memorandum statements of the co-accused, both the applicants are accused of participating in the criminal conspiracy to procure and sell MDMA in Raipur, thereby facilitating the illegal drug trade. Therefore, present applicants are 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, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant, Junaid Akhtar is in jail since 03.09.2025 and applicant, Vidhi Agrawal is in jail since 04.09.2025, the fact that though the applicants are alleged to be part of the same drug-trafficking network in which 27.58 grams of MDMA was recovered from co-accused persons and based on the memorandum statements of the co-accused, both the applicants are accused of participating in the criminal conspiracy to 4 procure and sell MDMA in Raipur, thereby facilitating the illegal drug trade, but considering the fact that the co-accused persons, namely Sohel Khan and Rishi Tandon, from whom no seizure has been made, as well as the co-accused Deep Dhanoriya, from whose possession seizure has been made, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.11.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 8709/2025, 8720/2025 and 9259/2025 and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused Sohel and Rishi and better than that of the co-accused Deep Dhanoriya, further the applicants have no criminal antecedents and charge- sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicants-Junaid Akhtar and Vidhi Agrawal, involved in Crime No. 222/2025 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 22(C) and 29 r/w Section 22 (C) of NDPS Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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. 5 (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil