1 2026:CGHC:7605 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1479 of 2026 1 - Ramesh Tandi S/o Ravi Tandi Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Tulagaon, Narlaload, Police Station- Narla, Tahsil- Narla, District - Kalahandi (Odisha) 2 - Kapilash Gaud S/o Late Manik Gaud Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Tulagaon, Narlaload, Police Station - Narla, Tahsil- Narla, District- Kalahandi (Odisha) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O2cer, Police Station- Khamtarai, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.02.2026 1. This is the 8rst bail application 8led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 450/2025, registered at Police Station – Khamtarai, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the o>ences punishable under Section 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the Police of Police Station – Khamtarai, District – Raipur (C.G.) has received a secret information through the informant and on the basis of the said information, the Police authority has seized a total of 40.260 Kgs of Ganja from the joint possession of the applicants and other co- accused persons. Thereafter, the applicants were arrested and the case was registered by the Police. Hence, this bail application. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the alleged contraband was neither seized from the actual or exclusive possession of the present applicants nor had they any knowledge of the Ganja allegedly recovered by the police, and therefore the essential requirement of conscious possession is not satis8ed. It is further submitted that the place of seizure was an open place not exclusively occupied or owned by the applicants, and that there has been non-compliance and violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, rendering the prosecution case false and fabricated. It is also contended that the quantity allegedly recovered, i.e., 40.260 kg of Ganja, cannot by itself establish conscious and exclusive possession of the applicants. She further submits that the charge- sheet has been 8led in this case. The applicants have no criminal antecedents, and are the sole breadwinners of their family with small children to support and they are in jail since 18.05.2025. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the charge-sheet has been 8led in the present case before the competent Court however, the quantity of contraband article i.e. 40.260 Kgs Ganja which has been recovered from the joint possession of the applicants along with co- accused, is much above the commercial quantity. She also submits that the bail applications of the other co-accused persons, namely, Vasudev Mahanand, Dev Mahanand and Raj Tandi have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC Nos. 10227/2025 and 10285/2025, vide orders dated 11.12.2025 and 12.12.2025 respectively, and as such, the applicants are also 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 and further the fact that the contraband article i.e. 40.260 Kgs Ganja which has been seized from the joint possession of the applicants along with co-accused, is much above the commercial quantity and the applicant has failed to give an explanation regarding the same and it cannot be a case of false implication, further the bail applications of the other co-accused persons, namely, Vasudev Mahanand, Dev Mahanand and Raj Tandi have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC Nos. 10227/2025 and 10285/2025, vide orders dated 11.12.2025 and 12.12.2025 respectively, hence, this Court does not 8nd a 8t case to release the applicants on regular bail. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants – Ramesh Tandi and Kapilash Gaud, involved in Crime No. 450/2025, registered at Police Station – Khamtarai, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the o>ences punishable under Section 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. O2ce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan