1 2026:CGHC:20965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4176 of 2026 Priyanshu Chouhan S/o Shri Harish Chouhan Aged About 22 Years R/o Gouri Nagar, Gali No. 03, Out Post - Chikhali, Police Station Kotwali, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.05.2026 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. 93/2026 registered at Police Station-Kotwali District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence under Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.02.2026, Sub- Inspector Dhaniram Narang of Police Station Kotwali allegedly KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 received secret information from an informant that a person from Durg was illegally selling narcotic tablets near Mahakal Tea Stall situated on Bypass Road, Rajnandgaon, while waiting to board a bus and wearing a red T-shirt. Acting upon the said information, and after informing senior ofÏcers and obtaining their instructions, the police party, along with staff and independent witnesses, proceeded to the spot carrying an investigation kit box. It is alleged that after surrounding the area, one suspicious person wearing a red T-shirt was apprehended near a kiosk, who disclosed his name as Saurabh Dhruv, and other persons standing with him disclosed their names as Taranjeet Singh, Ritesh Yadav, Pramod Baghel, Rohan Gaikwad, Priyanshu Chauhan, and Taresh Sinha. Thereafter, search proceedings were conducted, and a total of 450 Alprazolam tablets weighing 48.6 grams were allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused persons, out of which 30 Alprazolam tablets were allegedly recovered from the present applicant/accused. On being questioned regarding possession of the said tablets, the applicant allegedly failed to produce any valid document or authority, whereupon the said tablets were seized and the applicant, along with co-accused persons, was arrested. It is further alleged that a Dehati Nalishi was recorded at the spot, and upon return to the police station, an FIR bearing Crime No. 93/2026 was registered at Police Station Kotwali for the offence punishable under Section 21(B) of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is 3 innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as the allegations are based merely on suspicion and there is no cogent material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery from the present applicant is much below the commercial quantity and falls within a quantity lesser than commercial quantity; therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted and the case of the applicant is liable to be considered on ordinary principles governing grant of bail. It is also contended that the contraband allegedly seized from the applicant has not been proved to be in his conscious and exclusive possession, which is a mandatory requirement under the NDPS Act and the alleged seizure from co- accused persons cannot be mechanically attributed to the present applicant, as the recovery shown from him is separate and below commercial quantity. He further submits that there is non- compliance of the mandatory provisions relating to search and seizure, inasmuch as no separate Panchnama for search before a Gazetted OfÏcer has been prepared. It is also argued that the implication of the applicant is solely based on the memorandum statement of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which has no independent evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for arrest or continued detention. It is further submitted that the applicant was merely present at the bus stand waiting for his bus and on the basis of mere suspicion he has been apprehended, as there is no independent material to establish conscious possession, sale, or involvement in any narcotic 4 transaction, and mere presence at the spot does not constitute an offence under the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial and in the absence of sufÏcient legal evidence, further detention of the applicant is unwarranted. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is a young boy aged about 22 years and has been in judicial custody since 05.02.2026, and as the trial is likely to take considerable time, his continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose; hence, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present applicant has been found in possession of contraband falling within intermediate quantity, which clearly attracts the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the recovery has been duly effected in accordance with law and the applicant has failed to furnish any valid explanation or authority for possessing the said narcotic substance. He further contends that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and therefore, there is sufÏcient material available against the applicant indicating his involvement in the alleged offence. It is also submitted that although the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the nature and gravity of the offence are serious, and considering the manner in which the offence has been committed, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court which is taken on record and further the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, is an intermediate quantity and the applicant has no criminal antecedent and moreover, he is in jail since 05.02.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant – Priyanshu Chouhan, involved in Crime No. 93/2026 registered at Police Station-Kotwali District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence under Section 21(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing 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 cause, the trial court may proceed against him under 6 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal