1 2026:CGHC:17928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3397 of 2026 Kanti Pandey W/o. Late Laxmiprasad Pandey Aged About 46 Years R/o. Village- Chorbhattikhurd Bharni, Thana And Tahsil Sakri, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Aadesh Date 26-09-2025 Me Age 31 Years Galat Ankit Hai) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Aarakshi Kendra Sakari, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.04.2026 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. 533/2025 registered at Police Station – Sakri, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, on 31.07.2025, Police Station Sakri VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.21 18:15:32 +0530 2 received secret information that residents of Chorbhathikhurd, Muslim Mohalla, namely accused Kanti Pandey and her son, Girish Chandra Pandey, had procured a large quantity of ganja from Odisha. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid, during which it was revealed that, at the request of the accused persons, co-accused Deepak Ganda and Dileshwar Nayak had brought the contraband from Odisha in an Ertiga car bearing registration No. OD-17-U/1372 and delivered the same to them. Subsequently, from the possession of accused Kanti Pandey and Girish Chandra Pandey, the police seized a total quantity of 30 kilograms of ganja, out of which 15 kilograms were recovered from a white plastic bag belonging to Kanti Pandey and 15 kilograms from a blue plastic bag belonging to Girish Chandra Pandey, which were kept in a Baleno car bearing registration No. CG-10-BD/4999. Both the accused were arrested on the same day, and an FIR was registered against them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and that the alleged contraband article, i.e., 30 kgs of ganja, was not seized from his possession. He further submits that although the bail application of the co-accused, namely Dileshwar Nayak, was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 10081 of 2025 vide order dated 08.01.2026, the said co-accused preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was subsequently allowed and he was granted bail. It is also submitted that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 31.07.2025. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposed the bail application and submitted that, in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that although the co-accused has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present applicant has three criminal antecedents, out of which two are under the NDPS Act, Crime No. 343/2025 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act and Crime No. 802/2023 under Section 20(C) of the NDPS Act, which are still pending before the trial Court. Learned State Counsel contends that the pendency of the aforesaid cases indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender and, therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged 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, and also taking into account that two criminal cases under the NDPS Act are pending against the applicant, namely, Crime No. 343/2025 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act and Crime No. 802/2023 under Section 20(C) of the NDPS Act, which prima facie indicate that the applicant is a habitual offender; and further, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein bail granted to the accused was cancelled on account of criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant grant of regular bail to the applicant. The case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused who has been granted bail 4 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Kanti Pandey, involved in Crime No. 533/2025 registered at Police Station – Sakri, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) 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. Office 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 vaibhav