1 2025:CGHC:8370 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1362 of 2025 Rahul Pathak S/o Brajmohan Pathak Aged About 27 Years Ward No. 08, Azad Chowk, Patan, Police Station Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station G.R.P. Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.02.2025 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. 99/2024 registered at Police Station – G.R.P. Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. According to the prosecution's story, Sub Inspector of Police Station RPF Post, Durg, received information that a person was sitting beside railway yard number 864/2A at Durg Railway Station, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.19 11:47:03 +0530 2 carrying a purple bag containing psychotropic substances. Acting on this information, the Sub Inspector apprehended a person named Prem Prakash Netam. Upon searching him, 508 units of psychotropic substance (Codeine) were seized. Prem Prakash Netam stated that the applicant/accused had fled the scene. Based on his statement, an FIR was registered against the applicant/accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the alleged contraband article i.e. 508 units of psychotropic substance (codeine) were not seized from the possession of the present applicant. He also submits that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act and the concerned police station did not take proper investigation before lodging FIR against the applicant. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 02.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the alleged contraband article which is recovered from the possession of the present applicant is much above the commercial quantity, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular 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 and the fact 3 that the name of the present applicant has come into light in the memorandum statement of the co-accused person, moreover, the contraband article i.e. 508 units of psychotropic substance (codeine) which were recovered from the possession of the other co-accused person, which are much above the commercial quantity and the applicant has failed to give any explanation for the same and it cannot be a case of false implication. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Rahul Pathak, involved in Crime No. 99/2024 registered at Police Station – G.R.P. Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21(C) 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) ChiefJustice Abhishek