1 2025:CGHC:53137 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7803 of 2025 Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Mahesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Kali Mandir, Ward No. 24, Nayapara, Mahasamund, P.S. Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.11.2025 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. 349/2025 registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 21(C) 22, 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the concerned police station Mahasamund, received secret information through the informant that VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.21 11:25:21 +0530 2 on 14.08.2025, unknown person were illegal selling ban medicine at open place ie. Daldali Sorid Road near Anganbadi and police has seized total Vipserex syrup 1300 ml. Codine Phosphate 2600 mg. and Triprolidine HCL-IP 325 mg ban medicine from place of incident from place of incident at open place and as a result thereof, police has registered offence publishable under section 21(C), 22, 27 of the N.D.P.S. and section 25 of Arms Act against the other accused person and only on the basis of memorandum statement, the applicant has been arrested on 15.08.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case and has neither committed nor participated in any offence. He further submits that the applicant having no nexus whatsoever with the incident narrated by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to establish the applicant’s exclusive possession over the alleged seized articles, as even the seizure witnesses have not supported the case. The mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with, and the concerned police authorities did not conduct a proper and fair investigation prior to lodging the FIR, resulting in the applicant’s wrongful implication. The applicant has neither committed the alleged offence nor has he been involved in any manner in the present crime, and he has been arrested without seizure of any material from his possession. The alleged banned medicine was not seized from the applicant and merely on the basis of suspicion at the place of incident, he has been falsely roped into the matter. There is no clinching, reliable or dependable evidence showing compliance of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The police authorities have acted solely on 3 suspicion without any sufficient reason or proper enquiry. The charge- sheet has already been filed and no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.08.2025., therefore, he prayed 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 in the present case, charge- sheet has not yet been submitted before the competent Court. It is further submitted that a commercial quantity of contraband article total Vipserex syrup 1300 ml. Codine Phosphate 2600 mg. and Triprolidine HCL-IP 325 mg ban medicine. This quantity far exceeds the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act. He also submits that the applicant has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the alleged contraband article. In view of the seriousness of the offence and the quantity involved, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to be released on 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, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the fact that the total quantity of Vipserex syrup (1300 ml), containing Codeine Phosphate (2600 mg) and Triprolidine HCL-IP (325 mg), is above the commercial quantity as per the Schedule of the NDPS Act, and further noting that the applicant has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the contraband article alleged to have been seized from him, it is evident that the seizure of such a substantial quantity prima facie indicates the 4 involvement of the applicant in the illicit trafficking of narcotic substances, which constitutes a serious offence under the NDPS Act. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present bail application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Praveen Kumar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 349/2025 registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 21(C) 22, 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav