1 2025:CGHC:57019 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9465 of 2025 Amit Thakur S/o Lalit Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Tikaripara Takhatpur, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 465/2024, registered at Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 111 of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.09.2024 the Takhatpur Police, acting on secret information, searched accused Aap Singh, Mahendra Sagar, and Lalita Sagar near Takhatpur– Pandaria Road and recovered a total of 854 buprenorphine-based Rexogesic injection ampules (2 ml each). Crime No. 465/2024 was registered under Sections 21 & 22 of the NDPS Act, and the accused were arrested and sent to judicial custody. Later, co- accused Brijlal was also arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. The case records show that the applicant/accused and co-accused were jointly found in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic injections (total 3416 ml), and charges under Section 111 BNS (criminal gang formation for narcotics trade) have also been framed, which remain unchallenged. The prosecution highlights that the applicant’s own Swift car contained 54 ampules recovered from behind the seat and from his pocket, and his memorandum is on record. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in jail since 15.09.2024. He further submits that the identically situated co- accused, namely, Anjali Gendle has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2025 in MCRC No.7521 of 2025 3 and the mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied with in this case. He also submits that the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the quantity of contraband article i.e. 3416 ml of psychotropic injections were recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused and from the applicant specifically, 54 ampules (50 ampules form a cloth bag kept behind the Swift car seat and 4 ampules from his pocket), which are much above the commercial quantity as notified under the NDPS Act and as such, 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. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the contraband articles i.e. 3416 ml of psychotropic injections were recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused and from the applicant specifically, 54 ampules (50 ampules form a cloth bag kept behind the Swift car seat and 4 ampules from his pocket) is much above the prescribed commercial quantity threshold and counsel for the applicant has failed to give plausible 4 explanation regarding the same, so far as co-accused, Anjali Gendle on whom, the applicant is relying is concerned, she has been granted bail by this Court on the ground that no seizure of any contraband article has been made from her possession and she has one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, in which she has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, as such, the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of the said co-accused as the present applicant has been found in possession of contraband article, hence it cannot be a case of false implication, particularly when the trial is in progress. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Amit Thakur, involved in Crime No. 465/2024, registered at Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 111 of BNS, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil