1 2025:CGHC:52989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8603 of 2025 1 - Kanha Giri Goswami S/o Bharat Giri Goswami Aged About 37 Years R/o Devripara, Near Samshanghat, Firangipara, Kota, P.S. Kota , District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Gajanandgiri Goswami S/o Garib Giri Goswami Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Lamkena, P.S. Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30/10/2025 1. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the default has already been cured as has been pointed out by the Registry. 2. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 374/2023 registered at Police Station- Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 under Sections 20(B) of NDPS Act. 3. The earlier first bail application of the applicants being MCRC No. 3391/2023 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2023, on the ground of criminal antecedent. Hence this Second bail application. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police ofÏcer has received information by the informant during checking that on 30.04.2023 the unknown persons were kept illegal contraband ganja and on search being made, the police has seized 12 kgs. of contraband ganja from the possession of the present applicants and accordingly, the offence was registered and the applicants were arrested. 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the earlier bail application of the applicants was rejected by this Court on the ground of their criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act. The new ground for filing the present (second) bail application is that out of 16 prosecution witnesses, 3 witnesses have already been examined. Applicant No.1 has previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, and applicant No.2 also has previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, which are at the final stage. He further submits that from the possession of the present applicants, an intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, and therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply, as the commercial quantity of ganja prescribed under the Schedule is more than 20 kilograms, whereas only 12 kilograms of ganja has been seized from the possession of the 3 applicants. He further submits that the applicants are in jail since 30.04.2023. Hence, it is prayed that the applicants be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the applicant No.1 has a previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act registered in the year 2019, and applicant No.2 has previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act registered in the years 2019 and 2021. It is further submitted that the applicants are habitual offenders and their earlier bail application has already been rejected by this Court on the ground of criminal antecedents. Considering the nature of the offence, no good ground is made out for releasing the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicants deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. From perusal of the order dated 21.06.2023, it is apparent that the first bail application of the applicants was rejected on the ground of criminal antecedents that the applicants are having criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act and it appears that till date it is pending and further the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicants i.e. 12 Kgs of Ganja, however which is less than commercial quantity but the applicants have failed to give an explanation for the said recovery and further the fact that out of 16 prosecution witnesses, 3 4 witnesses have been recorded as such, it appears that no new ground has been raised by the counsel for the applicants to interference by this Court in this Second bail application and they are habitual offender, further they have misused the bail granted to them 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 applicants on regular bail. Accordingly, the Second bail application of applicants – Kanhagiri Goswami and Gajanandgiri Goswami, involved in Crime No. 374/2023 registered at Police Station- Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) of NDPS Act, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Court, if there is no legal impediment. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - S Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal