Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9967 (CHH)

AAYUSH AGRAWAL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/1562/2025 · 2025-03-12

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:12316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1562 of 2025 Aayush Agrawal S/o Dinesh Agrawal Aged About 26 Years R/o Block No.- 4, H.No.- 404, Samrajya Residency, Khamtarai, Thana - Khamtarai, Dist- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Police Station Civil Line, Dist- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advcoate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.591/2024, registered at Police Station- Civil Line, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 22 (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 16.11.2024 the Police of Police Station Civil Line, District – Raipur have arrested the present applicant and other co-accused persons and recovered M.D.M.A. total of 03.88 PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 grams from their joint possession and after due investigation field the charge-sheet. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act of the year 2024. He further submits that the co- accused persons, namely, Siddharth Rai and Kshitij Pandey have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2025 and 04.02.2025 passed in MCRC No. 503/2025 and 1001/2025. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 16.11.2024. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that a total of 03.88 grams M.D.M.A from their joint possession, which is less than the commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act of the year 2024. Hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the quantity of contraband articles total of 03.88 grams M.D.M.A has been seized from the joint possession of the applicant and other co-accused person, which is less than the commercial quantity and the co-accused person have been granted bail on the ground that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, further the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, the applicant has one previous criminal 3 antecedents under the NDPS Act of the year 2024 to which no explantion has been offered, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender and it cannot be said to be a case of false implication 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. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Aayush Agrawal involved in Crime No.591/2024, registered at Police Station- Civil Line, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 22 (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. The OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti