1 2026:CGHC:9077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 282 of 2026 Tapas Manjhi S/o Birendra Nath Manjhi Aged About 52 Years R/o M.P.V. 8 Post Chitrangpalli District- Malkangiri Odisha ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kuakonda District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 20/02/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.16/2023, registered at Police Station Kuakonda District- Dantewada (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 20(B)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Crime No. 16/2023 has been registered at Police Station Kuakonda Police Station, District Dantewada, under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. It is alleged that a vehicle bearing registration No. OD-30/6069 was found transporting a total quantity of 62.100 kilograms of contraband ganja, which falls under commercial quantity. During investigation, the said vehicle was found to be registered in the name of the applicant/accused Tapas Manjhi. Although the applicant claimed that he had sold the vehicle to one Keshab Halder prior to the incident, no documentary proof of such sale was produced before the investigating agency. Further, the vehicle had not been officially transferred in the name of the alleged purchaser in the records of the Transport Department. Moreover, the said alleged purchaser did not admit before the Court that he had purchased the vehicle. On the said grounds, the prosecution asserts that there is prima facie material indicating the involvement of the applicant in the illegal transportation of a commercial quantity of ganja. It is further contended that the accused remained absconding and thereby hampered the investigation. Hence, the anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the present applicant, though recorded as the registered owner of the vehicle allegedly used in the commission 3 of the offence, had already sold the said vehicle to one Keshab Haldhar by way of a duly executed sale deed dated 08.07.2021 and had handed over peaceful possession thereof to the purchaser. It was specifically agreed between the parties that the said Keshab Haldhar would be responsible for payment of all remaining instalments and, upon clearance of the same, the vehicle would be formally transferred in his name in the records of the Transport Authority. A copy of the sale deed is filed herewith as ANNEXURE A-3. He also submits that the applicant is a reputed and law-abiding person of his village and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged offence. The applicant was completely unaware of the crime in question and came to know about his implication only when he learnt that he had been shown as an accused in the said case. Immediately thereafter, the applicant voluntarily approached District Dantewada, collected necessary information regarding the case, and engaged counsel to seek appropriate legal remedy before this Court, therefore, he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submits that a vehicle bearing registration No. OD-30/6069, registered in the name of the applicant, was used for transportation of 62.100 kilograms of commercial quantity ganja, and as the vehicle continued to stand in his name without any official transfer or valid proof of sale to the alleged purchaser, the applicant is prima facie 4 held responsible for the illegal transportation of contraband under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. She also submits that the applicant remained absconding and thereby obstructed the investigation. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the bail application. 6. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anarul SK v. The State of West Bengal {SLP (Crl.) No(s). 12621/2024 has observed that the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) is a very serious issue. 7. In the light of observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anarul SK (supra), I do not find any good ground to entertain this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil