1 2026:CGHC:4487 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 800 of 2026 Pankaj Kumar Singh S/o Deenanath Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Beni Aurangabad, Ps Mali, District Aurangabad, Bihar ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO PS Ambikapur Rural (Gandhinagar), District Sarguja C.G. ...Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Soni along with Mr. Suraj Kumar Audheliya, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/01/2026 1. This is the third bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 0364/2024 registered at Police Station Ambikapur Rural (Gandhinagar), District Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 22C and 27A of the NDPS Act. 2. The earlier two bail applications filed by the applicant were rejected by this Court on merits in MCRC No. 1318 of 2025 vide order dated VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.27 18:07:04 +0530 2 19.02.2025 and in MCRC No. 3627 of 2025 vide order dated 08.05.2025. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 17.06.2024, the officers of Police Station Ambikapur Rural (Gandhinagar), District Sarguja (C.G.), during the course of investigation, seized 1,500 numbers of Rexogesic Buprenorphine injections (unit quantity 20 ml, total quantity 30,000 ml) and 150 numbers of Avil Pheniramine injections (unit quantity 10 ml, total quantity 1,500 ml) from the illegal possession of the co-accused person. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the said co- accused, the present applicant was arrested on 18.06.2024 in connection with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as no contraband has been recovered from his exclusive or conscious possession and he was arrested on 18.06.2024 solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the prime co-accused from whom the alleged drugs were seized. It is further contended that as per the trial programme, out of a total of 22 prosecution witnesses, only nine witnesses have been examined and cross-examined up to 15.07.2025 and, except PW-05 and PW-09, all seven independent witnesses have turned hostile, copies of whose depositions are annexed as Annexure- A/4. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in continuous judicial custody since 18.06.2024 for more than one and a half years and during this period his aged mother, Smt. Suruchi Devi, aged about 70 years, who is suffering from serious psychiatric and neurological ailments and has been referred to AIIMS, New Delhi, is 3 unable to receive proper medical care due to the applicant’s incarceration, as evidenced by the medical documents annexed as Annexure-A/5. It is also urged that the alleged offence is triable by a Magistrate and is not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed on 28.10.2024 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (NDPS Act), Ambikapur. It is further submitted that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and his prolonged pre-trial detention has caused grave hardship to his dependents, and lastly, that the applicant is a permanent resident with deep-rooted social ties and substantial movable and immovable properties, leaving no reasonable apprehension of absconding or tampering with prosecution witnesses. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that, insofar as the ailment of the mother of the applicant is concerned, in compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 22.01.2026, the said fact has been duly verified by the prosecution. Upon such verification, it is found that the mother of the applicant is suffering from ailments attributable to old age and has also sustained a fracture in her hand, however, it is submitted that the wife of the applicant is available and is presently taking care of her and attending to her medical needs. Learned State counsel further submits that the two earlier bail applications preferred by the applicant have already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court on merits in MCRC No. 1318 of 2025 vide order dated 19.02.2025 and in MCRC No. 3627 of 2025 vide order dated 08.05.2025, and therefore, no new or substantial change in circumstances has been demonstrated so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer for bail. It is further contended 4 that the name of the present applicant has clearly surfaced in the memorandum statement of the co-accused, wherein it has been disclosed that the contraband articles were sold by the applicant, thereby establishing his involvement in the alleged offence. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the allegations, and the material available on record, learned State counsel submits that the present applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail and prays for dismissal of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration that the trial is progress, the nature of the allegations, and the recovery effected from the co-accused and applicant, and further considering that the two earlier bail applications filed by the applicant have already been dismissed by this Court on merits and that no change in circumstances has been demonstrated, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of regular bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant namely Pankaj Kumar Singh, involved in Crime No. 0364/2024 registered at Police Station Ambikapur Rural (Gandhinagar), District Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 22C and 27A of the NDPS Act, is rejected at this stage. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the mother of the applicant is suffering from ailments associated with old age, which fact has been duly verified and not disputed by the learned State counsel. 5 10. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am inclined to grant parole/short term bail to the applicant for the period of one month from the date of his release on an undertaking that he shall surrender before the concerned trial Court on the date to be given by the trial Court on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The applicant is directed to cooperate with the trial and during the release on parole/ short term bail, he shall not indulge in tampering of evidence or involve in any criminal activities, failing which, temporary bail granted to him shall automatically stand cancelled and the trial Court is at liberty to take him into custody and send him to jail. The trial Court concerned shall send a report to the Registry of this Court with regard to completion of the parole period and further with regard to surrender of the applicant on the date fixed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. 12. Certified copy, today. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav