1 2025:CGHC:58888 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9850 of 2025 Ankit Singh S/o Yashwant Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Ward No. 6, Ambedkar Chowk, Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Jutemill, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.12.2025 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. 381/2024 registered at Police Station- Jutmil Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the police of Police Station Jutemill, District Raigarh (C.G.), received secret information from an informant, and on the basis of such information, the police conducted a raid and searched two vehicles parked near Kodatarai RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Howaipatti. During the raid, five accused persons namely, Santram Khunte, Sumitra Khunte, Rajaram, Ankit Singh, and Mahendra Tondon were apprehended, and a total of 175 kg of contraband (Ganja) was seized from the said vehicles. During the course of investigation, it came to light that the seized Ganja had been purchased from one Vyomesh, who was alleged to be the distributor of the contraband. The police recorded the memorandum statements during investigation, implicated the present applicant along with other persons, and thereafter filed the charge sheet. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as no contraband article, namely cannabis, was recovered from his possession; that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with and even the photography of the spot during the raid was not conducted. He further submits that PW-4 (Jubed Khan), the memorandum and seizure witness, as well as PW-1 (Devkumar Sahu) and PW-5 (Harishankar Sao), the independent spot- proceeding witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. He also submits that only 10 out of 22 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and therefore the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 28.08.2024 and has already undergone more than one year and three months of incarceration. He also submits that similarly placed co-accused Vyomesh Khatua and Deepak @ Nanhu Bharadwaj, whose bail applications (MCRC No. 7090/2025 and MCRC No. 6013/2025) were rejected by this 3 Hon’ble Court, have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) Nos. 14183/2025 and 15232/2025 vide order dated 17.11.2025, and another co-accused, Bhagwat Sahu, has also been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 9791/2025 vide order dated 03.12.2025, and therefore the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and argued that the present applicant is not entitled to bail on the ground of parity, as the co-accused persons who were granted bail either by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by this Hon’ble Court had no recovery whatsoever from their possession, whereas a huge quantity of contraband i.e. 35 kg 100 grams of cannabis, which is far above the commercial quantity, has been recovered directly from the present applicant. It is submitted that recovery of commercial quantity attracts the stringent bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and unless the twin conditions of Section 37 are satisfied, bail cannot be granted. It is further submitted that the role and recovery attributed to the applicant is entirely different and much graver than that of the co-accused, and therefore the applicant cannot claim any benefit of parity. Hence, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that unlike the co-accused persons who were granted bail either by the 4 Hon’ble Supreme Court or by this Court and from whose possession no contraband was recovered, a substantial quantity of cannabis, i.e., 35 kg 100 grams, which is far above the commercial quantity, has been seized from the present applicant. The recovery of commercial quantity attracts the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the applicant is required to satisfy the twin conditions prescribed therein. The role attributed to the applicant is distinct and graver than that of the co-accused who were extended the benefit of bail, and therefore the principle of parity is not applicable to the present case. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the magnitude of the commercial quantity recovered, and the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ankit Singh, involved in Crime No. 381/2024 registered at Police Station- Jutmil Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(b) 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) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan