Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 58956 (CHH)

ARMAN AKHATAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/9095/2025 · 2025-11-12

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:55320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9095 of 2025 Arman Akhatar S/o Riyajuddin Aged About 32 Years R/o M.B. Road, Near Mangli-Bazar Gaurela P.S. - Gaurela, District- G.P.M. (C.G.) Current Add- Devpuri P/s Pachapedi (As Per Correct Details) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through-The Station House OfÏcer Of Police Station City Kotwali, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Alok Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.11.2025 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. 475/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 03.09.2025, on the basis of information received from an informer, a raid was conducted by the police near Jawali Nala Road. During the search, the police found a black bag in the possession of the present applicant, which contained 25 ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.14 11:08:04 +0530 2 ampoules of Nrx Buprenorphine Injection IP (2 ml each), totaling 50 ml and valued at Rs. 1,250/- and 25 ampoules of Pheniramine Maleate AVIL Injection IP (10 ml each), totaling 250 ml and valued at Rs. 586.75/-. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, an FIR was lodged against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act in connection with Crime No. 475/2025 at Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and that the alleged contraband articles, i.e., 25 ampoules of NRX Buprenorphine Injection IP (2 ml each), totaling 50 ml and valued at Rs. 1,250/-, and 25 ampoules of Pheniramine Maleate AVIL Injection IP (10 ml each), totaling 250 ml and valued at Rs. 586.75/-, were not seized from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with and that the concerned police station failed to conduct a proper investigation before lodging the FIR against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in jail since 03.09.2025 and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the alleged contraband article which is recovered from the possession of the present applicant is much above the commercial quantity, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that 3 from the possession of the present applicant, contraband articles, i.e., 25 ampoules of NRX Buprenorphine Injection IP (2 ml each), totaling 50 ml and valued at Rs. 1,250/-, and 25 ampoules of Pheniramine Maleate AVIL Injection IP (10 ml each), totaling 250 ml and valued at Rs. 586.75/-, were recovered, which are much above the commercial quantity, and as the applicant has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the same, it cannot be said to be a case of false implication. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Arman Akhatar, involved in Crime No. 475/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 21, 22 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) ChiefJustice Abhishek