Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11644 (CHH)

NABIL KHAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/554/2026 · 2026-02-12

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:8084 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 554 of 2026 Nabil Khan S/o Mahmood Ali Khan, aged about 36 years, R/o 1222, Phoolghadi, Near Madarsa Phoolghadi, Hapur, Thana Hapur Dehaat, District- Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Tongpal, District- Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For State/Non-Applicant : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, P.L. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station – Tongpal, Sukma (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Police Station Tongpal, Sukma (C.G.), had received secret information from the informant and on the basis of the said information the police authority started checking vehicles at Narcotics Jaanch Naka N.H. 30. Then, a vehicle bearing registration No. U.P. 37- Z- 2636 white Triber was stopped and after conducting the raid, the police authority have seized 122.370 kgs of contraband Ganja in 24 packets from the joint possession of the present applicant and other co-accused namely Mohammad Hasim. Thereafter, the Police has registered the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against the present applicant and other co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an advocate and he went on the alleged vehicle as a driver to earn his livelihood. He further submits that the present applicant has not having any knowledge of the present contraband article Ganja and he was only working as a driver of the alleged vehicle and the same was informed by the name of Mohammad Hasim by way of afÏdavit which is obtained by taking due permission from the learned trial Court and the appellant has no previous criminal antecedents. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that from the possession of the 3 applicant contraband article i.e. 122.370 kg of Ganja is seized, which is more than the commercial quantity, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the above submissions, nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that the contraband article which has been seized from the joint possession of the present applicant and other co-accused is much above the commercial quantity and although the main accused, Mohammad Hasim, has filed an afÏdavit stating that the present applicant has no connection with the seized contraband. However, this Court is not inclined to rely upon such afÏdavit at this stage. The applicant was admittedly the driver of the vehicle and he used it for transporting the contraband ganja from Uttar Pradesh to Jagdalpur, which prima facie indicates his involvement in the alleged commission of the offence. Hence, the bail application of the present applicant is rejected. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Nabil Khan, involved in Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station – Tongpal, Sukma (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the concerned trial court is at liberty to proceed further and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial 4 Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice U.K. Raju