1 2026:CGHC:380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9601 of 2025 1 - Dinesh @ Monu Dheevar S/o Ramesh Dheevar, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Rajim, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nitesh @ Monti Thakur S/o Bhanu Thakur, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Thakurpara, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.01.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 240/2025, registered at Police Station : Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, (C.G.) for the offence under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, a First Information Report bearing Crime No. 240/2025 under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 was registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariaband (C.G.) against the applicants and other co-accused persons. The applicants were arrested on 05.08.2025 and were sent to judicial custody. It is alleged that the applicants, in collusion with other co- accused persons, violated the provisions, rules, and orders of the NDPS Act by illegally possessing and transporting 120 tablets of the narcotic and prohibited drug Nitrosun (12 strips containing 10 tablets each) with the intent to sell the same. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the case is presently pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have neither committed nor participated in the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the alleged narcotic substance was not seized from the conscious possession of the present applicants and was allegedly recovered from an open place, yet the applicants have been falsely implicated in a fabricated case. She further submits that the co-accused in the present case, namely Maheshwar Nirmalkar, has already been granted regular bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No.8645/2025 vide order darted 31.10.2025, and therefore, the applicants are also entitled to the benefit of parity. She submits that the applicant No.1 has no any previous criminal antecedent and applicant No.2 has 01 previous criminal antecedent, which is pending. She also submits that the applicants are in jail since 05.08.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, she prays grant of 3 bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that the applicants were involved in the illegal possession and transportation of 120 tablets of the narcotic and prohibited drug Nitrosun in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the offence is serious in nature, applicant No.2 has 01 previous criminal antecedent in similar nature which is pending, shows that he is habitual offender, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, that there is 01 criminal antecedent registered against the applicant No. 2, namely, Nitesh @ Monti Thakur, which is pending, shows that applicant No. 2 is a habitual offender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant No.2 on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No.2 – Nitesh @ Monti Thakur, involved in Crime No. 240/2025, registered at Police Station : 4 Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, (C.G.) for the offence under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 7. Whereas, applicant No.1 has no any previous criminal antecedent, and he is languishing in jail since 05.08.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant No.1, namely, Dinesh @ Monu Dheevar is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No.1, namely, Dinesh @ Monu Dheevar, involved in Crime No. 240/2025, registered at Police Station : Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband, (C.G.) for the offence under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient 5 cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan