1 2025:CGHC:59203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9998 of 2025 Himanshu Chandrakar Alias Chhotoo S/o Hemlal Chandrakar Aged About 39 Years R/o Saraipali, Thana Bel Tukri, District Nuapada Odisha. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Kumhari, District Durg C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 32/2025 registered at Police Station - Kumhari, District Durg, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 and Section 27(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2802 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.06.2025 on merits with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police recovered a total of 35.900 kg of contraband Ganja from the possession of co- accused Jai Millu Sonkushare, Ram Prakash Singh, and Bhagwan Das, pursuant to which an offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Kumhari, District Durg. During investigation, the memorandum statements of the said co-accused persons were recorded on 09.03.2025, wherein they allegedly stated that they had purchased the contraband from one Chotu. On the basis of this disclosure and mere suspicion, the present applicant was arrested, and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was seized from his possession. Hence, the present bail application has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits with a direction to conclude the trial expeditiously but trial has not concluded and the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2025. He further submits that as per the status of the trial, out of 20 witnesses, only 04 prosecution witnesses have been examined in the case. He further submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents in the NDPS Act, out of which one is pending and another one has been disposed of in which applicant has been acquitted. Hence, 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. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that a commercial quantity of 35.900 kg of Ganja has been seized from the co-accused persons, and the present applicant has been implicated on the basis of their memorandum statements, from whose possession Rs.5,00,000/- has been recovered, indicating a financial link with the contraband transaction and further the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, out of which one has been disposed of in which applicant has been acquitted and another one is pending, shows that the applicant is involved in such offences and is a habitual offender, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. 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 applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Himanshu Chandrakar Alias Chhotoo, involved in Crime No. 32/2025 registered at Police Station - Kumhari, District Durg, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 and Section 27(a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, is rejected. 4 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan