1 2025:CGHC:7064 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1128 of 2025 Danieal Raju Ravidi S/o Pushparaj Ravidi Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bejangiwada, Christian Mohalla, Post Bejangiwada P.S. Kalimela, District- Malkangiri- Orissa ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Puspaal, District- Sukma (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/02/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 8/2024 registered at Police Station Puspaal, District- Sukma (C.G.) under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.10.2024, the Police of Police Station Puspaal, District- Sukma (C.G.) received secret information from the informant that one person carrying AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 contraband article coming from Odisha on motorcycle and on the basis of said information, the applicant was found to be in possession of 5.193 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of applicant, thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the contraband Ganja was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. He further submits that that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. He also submits that from the possession of the applicant intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs and from the possession of the applicant only 5.193 kgs Ganja has been seized. He later submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 02.10.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that though the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court, but applicant has one criminal antecedent under Gambling Act in the State of Odisha. He further submits that from the possession of the applicant contraband article i.e. 5.193 kgs of 3 Ganja is seized, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent, which is under Gambling Act in the State of Odisha, further applicant has no criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act & Excise Act, also considering the fact that the contraband article i.e. 5.193 kg Ganja recovered from the possession of the applicant is less than the commercial quantity and the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant - Danieal Raju Ravidi, involved in Crime No. 8/2024 registered at Police Station Puspaal, District- Sukma (C.G.) under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through 4 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. 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 date of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. OfÏce 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