1 2026:CGHC:7324 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1427 of 2026 Raja @ Sonu Suryawanshi S/o Bhorelal Suryawanshi Aged About 28 Years Caste- Suryawanshi, R/o Chhote Jhumarpara, Patna, Police Station - Patna, District - Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Patna, District - Koriya (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 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. 318/2023 registered at Police Station – Patna, District - Koriya (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of the incident, i.e., 21.09.2023, the police of Police Station Patna, District Koriya RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 (C.G.), upon receiving secret information from an informant that illicit Buprenorphine (IUPRINE) injections and Avil injections were being kept by the co-accused along with others, conducted a raid at the indicated spot, wherefrom 325 Buprenorphine injections of 02 ml each and 10 Avil injections of 10 ml each were recovered and seized from the possession of the co-accused, namely Abhishek Suryawanshi, thereafter, the police registered an offence under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in Crime No. 318/2023, investigated the matter, and filed the charge-sheet against the co-accused, while showing the present applicant as absconding and filing the final report accordingly, and, on the basis of the said recovery and seizure, the present applicant was subsequently arrested for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as the entire prosecution story is fabricated and concocted. He further submits that no contraband article, namely Buprenorphine (IUPRINE) injections or Avil injections, has been seized from the possession of the present applicant, nor had he any knowledge thereof, and therefore there was neither exclusive nor conscious possession of the alleged contraband on his part. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery and seizure were not made from the person or exclusive possession of the applicant and even the seizure panchnama does not clearly disclose the place from where 3 the contraband was seized, which makes the recovery highly doubtful. She also submits that, significantly, during the course of trial, the co-accused, namely Abhishek Suryawanshi, from whose possession the alleged contraband was stated to have been seized, has already been acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.), vide judgment dated 07.03.2025, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure A-3, which further strengthens the case of the present applicant. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has no any previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 13.11.2025, and the 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 and submits that the present case pertains to September, 2023, and the applicant had absconded since the date of the incident, whereas the co-accused was charge-sheeted and tried separately, and the charge-sheet against the present applicant was filed before the competent Court showing him as an absconder. She further submits that the applicant was arrested only after the acquittal of the co-accused, and such acquittal cannot be a ground for grant of bail to the present applicant. It is further submitted that upon search of the bag in possession of the co-accused, 325 Buprenorphine (IUPRINE) injections of 02 ml each and Avil vials of commercial quantity were recovered and seized, and the co- accused failed to produce any valid licence or document in respect thereof, in his memorandum statement, the co-accused disclosed 4 that the present applicant had handed over the plastic bag containing the contraband injections to him on 21.09.2023 with instructions to deliver the same to a person near Pasla Tiraha after receiving Rs.97,000/- and thereafter fled from the spot on a scooty and remained absconding. Hence, considering the recovery of contraband in quantity above commercial quantity and the role attributed to the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to be released on 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, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the recovery of Buprenorphine (IUPRINE) injections and Avil vials in quantity above commercial quantity from the possession of the co-accused, and the memorandum statement of the co-accused specifically attributing to the present applicant the role of supplying the contraband and directing its delivery to a prospective purchaser after receiving consideration, coupled with the fact that the applicant had remained absconding since the date of the incident and was arrested only after conclusion of the trial of the co-accused, this Court is of the opinion that the acquittal of the co-accused, which appears to have been recorded on grounds personal to him, does not ipso facto enure to the benefit of the present applicant whose role is separately alleged and yet to be adjudicated. This Court does not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 5 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Raja @ Sonu Suryawanshi, involved in Crime No. 318/2023 registered at Police Station – Patna, District - Koriya (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 22(C) and 29 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