1 2025:CGHC:53345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8642 of 2025 Nitin Raghav S/o Ram Avtar Singh Radhav Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 21, Gopal Nagar, P.S. Najafgarh, New Delhi, At Present Durgagudi Sai, P.S. Malkangiri District Malkangiri (Orissa) (Detail Of The Applicant Has Not Mentioned In Annexure A-1) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Sukma, District - Sukma (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.41/2025, registered at Police Station: Sukma, District - Sukma (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B) (ii) (C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, the concerned Police Station, Sukma, received secret information through an informant alleging that the applicant was involved in selling contraband ganja weighing 40 kilograms. The police seized the said contraband ganja from the possession of other co-accused persons and, as a result, registered an offence punishable under Sections 20(B)(ii)(C) and 29 of the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.03 10:36:22 +0530 2 N.D.P.S. Act against them. The applicant was arrested on 03.07.2025 solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no contraband article was seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant and that, solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused, namely, Vijendra, the applicant has been falsely implicated. The said co-accused allegedly stated that the contraband article had been purchased from the applicant, who is a resident of Odisha. Moreover, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. The applicant has been in custody since 03.07.2025. As the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that from the perusal of the case, it transpires that the accused/applicant is alleged to have supplied 40 kilograms of the narcotic substance ganja (cannabis) to other co-accused persons for the purpose of sale which is more than the commercial quantity, and the name of the applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of the co-accused, as such it appears to be an organized crime and there is every likelihood that the applicant will abscond if he would be allowed bail by this Court. Hence, the bail application is liable to be dismissed. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that, the accused/applicant is alleged to have supplied 40 kilograms of the narcotic substance ganja (cannabis) to other co-accused persons for the purpose of sale which is more than the commercial quantity, and the name of the applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of the co-accused, as such it appears to be an organized crime and there is every likelihood that the applicant will abscond if he would be allowed bail by this Court as he is a resident of Odisha, thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Nitin Raghav, involved in Crime No.41/2025, registered at Police Station: Sukma, District - Sukma (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B) (ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti