1 2025:CGHC:58600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9770 of 2025 Shatruhan Sahu @ Nanu Sahu S/o Late Dukhit Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Bhim Nagar Ward No.5, Near Deepak Kirana Stores Sanjay Nagar, Supela, P.S. Supela, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Ghumka District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, 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. 152/2024 registered at Police Station– Ghumka District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B)(II)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.10.2024, acting on information received from an informer, the Investigating OfÏcer RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 seized 65.565 kg of Ganja kept in 64 packets from a Tata DI 207 vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-JB-1697, which was in the possession of accused Bedabar Patro and Dhanraj Patel. During investigation, the memorandum statements of Bedabar Patro and Dhanraj Patel were recorded, wherein they stated that Anil Soni had brought the Ganja and had handed it over to them for delivery to Akash Yadav at Jabalpur. It is further alleged that the present applicant is the owner of the vehicle from which the contraband was seized. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the final report before the Court. Thereafter, the Police has registered the offence punishable under Sections 20(B)(II)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations against the applicant are false and baseless, and he has been falsely implicated only because he is the registered owner of the vehicle from which the contraband was seized, whereas no recovery has been made from his possession. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR, nor does his name appear in the memorandum statements of any co-accused. The applicant had purchased the vehicle from an insurance company and had given it on rent to the co-accused, who allegedly used it for transporting the contraband without the applicant’s knowledge. It is further argued that there is no compliance with Section 55 of the NDPS Act, as the seized Ganja was not sealed with the seal of the SHO before being deposited in the Malkhana. The applicant was not driving the 3 vehicle at the time of incident and had no knowledge of the alleged transportation of Ganja. Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7066/2025, Azruddin Qureshi v. State, wherein bail was granted in similar circumstances. He has no criminal antecedents and is in judicial custody since 14.04.2025, and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that a huge quantity of 65.565 kg of Ganja has been seized from the vehicle owned by the applicant, which clearly establishes his involvement in the illegal transportation of contraband. It is argued that during investigation, the co-accused persons specifically disclosed that co-accused Anil Soni had brought the Ganja and handed it over to them for delivery to another accused at Jabalpur, showing the applicant’s active participation in the supply chain. It is further submitted that the bail application of co-accused Anil Soni has already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C. No. 5192/2025 vide order dated 04.07.2025, therefore, on the principle of parity also, the present applicant is not entitled for bail. The recovery is commercial in nature, attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The plea that the applicant had merely rented out the vehicle is an afterthought and cannot be accepted at this stage, particularly when the vehicle was used for transporting such a huge quantity of contraband. It is further submitted that alleged non-compliance of Section 55 NDPS Act is a matter of evidence and cannot be a ground for bail. Considering the 4 gravity of the offence, the manner of operation, the organized nature of the activity and the severe punishment prescribed, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary, it appears that a commercial quantity of 65.565 kg of Ganja has been seized from the vehicle owned by the applicant. The vehicle itself was used as a means for transportation of the contraband. During investigation, the co-accused persons have specifically disclosed the involvement of co-accused Anil Soni, whose bail application has already been rejected by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 5192/2025 vide order dated 04.07.2025, and therefore the present applicant cannot claim parity. The offence involves a huge commercial quantity, and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely applies. The plea that the applicant had only rented out the vehicle is a matter of defence and cannot be accepted at this stage, particularly when the vehicle was found transporting a substantial quantity of contraband. Alleged lapses regarding Section 55 NDPS Act are issues to be examined during trial and do not constitute grounds for bail. Considering the gravity of the offence, the manner in which it has been committed, and the severity of punishment prescribed, this Court does not find any reasonable ground to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 5 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Shatruhan Sahu @ Nanu Sahu, involved in Crime No. 152/2024 registered at Police Station– Ghumka District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B)(II)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce 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 Rahul Dewangan