1 2025:CGHC:54412 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1659 of 2025 Pitambar Yadav S/o Jagbandhu Yadav Aged About 66 Years (As Per Aadhar No. 3107 1667 8537, Wrongly Mentioned As 70 Years), R/o House No. 1, Memarpara, Sihaardhar, Sonajori, Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer SB : Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 07/11/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 58/2025, registered at Police Station – Lailunga, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections Section 20 (b) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and under Section 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution's story in brief is that, on 08.03.2025, accused (named in FIR) namely Keshav Yadav was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and thereafter, accused Keshav confessed before the Police authorities that on SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 01.03.2025, he along with accused Nathu@ Ludro Yadav went to Odisha and purchased 60 Kg of Ganja from one Sujeet Barik. Out of said 60 Kgs, 17 Kg was sold to one Dinesh Yadav, 21 Kg was sold to one Girdhari Yadav and remaining 22 Kgs is kept hidden in his under construction house. Thereafter, they both were roaming in Car in search some customer to sell contraband, however on seeing the Police, they panicked & drove away, and after that, accused Nathu @ Lodru left the car midway in Ambikapur, whereas, the accused Keshav fled to Odisha. On the basis this statement of accused Keshav, accused Nathu @ Lodru was arrested and from their custody 11 Kg Ganja from each was seized. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, accused Nandlal Yadav was arrested and in his memorandum statement, he stated that his business of Ganja is being carried out with the help of one Pitambar Yadav. Thereafter, on the basis of above, Police authorities found the said person to be Pitambar Yadav, son of Gobarsai Yadav, aged around 50 years and also mentioned his name in the details of absconder annexed along with the charge sheet. However, in the final report, police mentioned the name of the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that co-accused Nandlal Yadav in his memorandum statement have stated that business of Ganja is being carried out with the help of one Pitambar Yadav and on the basis of above, police authorities found the said person to be Pitambar Yadav S/o. Gobarsai Yadav, aged around 50 years and also mentioned his name in the details of absconder annexed along with the charge sheet. However, for the reasons best known, in the list of absconder accused in the final report, they mentioned the name of Pitambar Yadav S/o. Jagbandhu Yadav, aged around 50 years. 4. He further submits that the absconder who is the main accused is a different person to that of the present applicant and therefore, the name of the 3 applicant has wrongly been mentioned in the charge-sheet. He contended that the main accused is namely, Pitamber Yadav S/o. Gobarsai Yadav instead of the applicant i.e. Pitambar Yadav S/o. Jagbandhu Yadav. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, he submits that there are no previous antecedents against the applicant. Further, there is no material available against the applicant in the charge-sheet. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that in the charge-sheet there is specific allegations against the applicant and further, 22 Kgs of Ganja were seized from the possession of the applicant and he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anarul SK v. The State of West Bengal {SLP (Crl.) No(s). 12621/2024 has observed that the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) is a very serious issue. 8. In the light of observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anarul SK (supra), I do not find any good ground to entertain this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Dey