1 2026:CGHC:10791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2053 of 2026 Sourabh Nagwanshi (Saurabh) S/o Rajkumar Nagwanshi Aged About 27 Years (Wrongly Written As Surwanshi Occupation Govt. Service / Constable G.R.P. Railway Bilaspur Chhattisgarh R/o Village Jamkor Police Station Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) Present Address- Police Quarter No. 1241/3 Construction Colony, Thana Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station G.R.P. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Jain along with Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.03.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 117/2024 registered at Police Station G.R.P. Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that The prosecution story in brief, is that on the basis of information from an informer, on 23.10.2024, the Police of Police Station G.R.P. Bilaspur seized 10 kg of illegal ganja from the possession of accused Yogesh Sondhiya and 10 kg of illegal ganja from the possession of accused Rohit Dwivedi at Railway Station Bilaspur. Further investigation of the case was done by Anti Crime Cyber Unit (hereinafter referred as A.C.C.U.) Bilaspur and on the basis of the memorandum statement given by them on 24.10.2024, 4 constables posted in Police Station G.R.P. Laxman Gain, Mannu Prajapati, Santosh Rathore and Saurabh Nagvanshi (applicant) were also made accused and arrested, and thereafter, during the course of investigation by A.C.C.U., another accused Shyamdhar Chaudhary was also arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 14.01.2025 in MCRC No.316 of 2025, therefore this second bail application is filed on the ground that after rejection of the first bail application, The applicant preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 17941 of 2025 before 3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.05.2025. While dismissing the said SLP, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the applicant would be at liberty to apply for bail before the High Court after examination of the material witnesses. He also submits that two seizure witnesses and two memo witnesses have turned hostile before the trial Court and the applicant is in jail since 29.10.2024, hence, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that on 23.10.2024, 10 kg of illegal ganja each was seized from accused, Yogesh Sondhiya and Rohit Dwivedi at Railway Station Bilaspur by GRP Police. During further investigation by ACCU Bilaspur, on the basis of their memorandum statements, four GRP constables Laxman Gain, Mannu Prajapati, Santosh Rathore and the present applicant Saurabh Nagvanshi were implicated and arrested, along with another accused Shyamdhar Chaudhary. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the bail application of a co-accused has been rejected by this Court earlier. 5. He also submits that the applicant and other constables used to seize ganja during train checking and illegally sell it to private individuals, namely, Yogesh alias Guddu and Shyamdhar alias Chotu, and receive payment in cash or online. Call detail records show regular contact between the applicant and the co-accused, 4 including on the date of the incident. Bank account analysis allegedly reveals large suspicious transactions, including deposits and withdrawals linked to the accused, and a transfer of Rs. 72,000/- by the applicant, which is stated to be prima facie evidence of involvement in ganja smuggling. He further submits that in the present case there are as many as 91 prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the ground taken by the applicant for grant of bail is wholly unfounded, inasmuch as, out of the said 91 prosecution witnesses, several other material witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2025 in MCRC No. 316 of 2025 on the ground of recovery of 20 kg of ganja (which is above commercial quantity), the applicant’s name surfacing in the memorandum statements of co-accused, the call detail records and bank transactions indicating prima facie involvement of the applicant, who is a serving police constable, in an organized racket of illegal sale of contraband, and the rejection of bail of a similarly placed co-accused. The ground of two seizure witnesses and two memorandum witnesses have turned hostile, 5 cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence. So far as this second bail is concerned, although liberty was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 17941 of 2025 vide order dated 29.05.2025 to apply for bail after examination of the material witnesses, it is not in dispute that in the present case there are as many as 91 prosecution witnesses and several other material witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the condition indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court stands satisfied. 8. So far as the ground of incarceration taken by the applicant is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Vigin K. Varghese (Special Leave Petition (Cri.) Nos.7768 of 2025 and 11097 of 2025) decided on 13.11.2025 has observed that in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for bail. 9. Considering the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court, further the fact that trial is in progress and also in the light of observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vigin K. Varghese (supra) that in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for bail, therefore I do not find any good ground to entertain this second bail application. 6 10. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant - Sourabh Nagwanshi (Saurabh), involved in Crime No. 117/2024 registered at Police Station G.R.P. Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected at this stage. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil