1 2026:CGHC:4775 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9206 of 2025 1 - Abdul Nadeem S/o Abdul Rahim Aged About 29 Years R/o Yashodhara Nagar, Laljhanda Chowk, P.S. Yashodhara Nagar, District : Nagpur, Maharashtra 2 - Mohd. Khatif S/o Abdul Gafur Aged About 26 Years R/o Kalajhanda, Mominpura, P.S. And Tahsil And District Nagpur, Maharashtra (Detail Of The Applicants Have Not Mentioned In Annexure A-1) ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Singhoda, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 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 have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 81/2025 registered at Police Station - Singhoda, District – VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.29 11:59:05 +0530 2 Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(B)(II)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the concerned police station Singhoda received secret information through the informant that on the date of incident, unknown persons have kept illegal contraband ganja in their vehicle to sale and police has seized 10 kg. contraband ganja from joint possession of the applicants at open place and as a result thereof, police has registered offence publishable under section 20 (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act against the applicants 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case, as they have no nexus whatsoever with the incident alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to establish exclusive possession of the alleged contraband, and the seizure memo is not duly proved in accordance with law, even as per the statements of the seizure witnesses. It is further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with and the concerned police station conducted a defective and improper investigation before lodging the FIR, resulting in false implication of the applicants. Even otherwise, if the alleged seized ganja is hypothetically divided between two persons, the quantity allegedly attributable to each applicant would be very small. The allegations levelled against the applicants are false, fabricated and baseless, and the applicants have neither committed the alleged offence nor were in any manner involved, yet they have been wrongly arrested by the police. The applicants are permanent residents of the 3 villages mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of their absconding, they undertake to furnish adequate security and to abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that applicant No.1 has three criminal antecedents, whereas applicant No. 2 has none, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular 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, it is observed that the contraband article, i.e., ganja, recovered from the possession of the applicants is less than the commercial quantity. Further, considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the applicants have been in judicial custody since 04.10.2025 while the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicants - Abdul Nadeem & Mohd Khatif, involved in Crime No.81/2025 registered at Police Station - Singhoda, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(B)(II)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against themselves in accordance with law. 8. Office 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 vaibhav