1 2026:CGHC:5990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1138 of 2026 Purushottam Sahu S/o Netram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kudhurtal, Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Saliha, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari Advocate along with Ms. Minakshi Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/02/2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 39/2025 registered at Police Station – Saliha, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 16.05.2025, the police of Police Station Saliha, District Sarangarh–Bilaigarh (C.G.), received information from an informant that the applicant and a co-accused were transporting contraband. Acting on the said information, the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 police conducted a raid and seized 19 kg of contraband ganja from a white Swift Dzire car on the Basna–Mungeli Road, allegedly from the possession of the present applicant and another co-accused. Thereafter, the police registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and arrested the present applicant along with the co-accused. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and the co-accused on 11.08.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and further the alleged contraband was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant, as the ganja was seized from the dickey of the car and not from his personal possession. The prosecution is also stated to have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, thereby entitling the applicant to the grant of bail. It is further submitted that a co- accused in the same case has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7343/2025, and on the ground of parity, the present applicant also deserves the same relief. It is further submitted that the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant has a previous criminal 3 antecedent under the NDPS Act in the year 2025, for which no explanation has been furnished. It is further submitted that the quantity of contraband article, i.e., 19 kilograms of ganja, has been recovered in the present case, which clearly indicates the seriousness of the offence. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the nature of recovery and the antecedents of the applicant, it is contended that he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the serious nature of the offence, the present applicant is not entitled to bail. The co-accused Surendra Lahre was granted bail by this Court only because he had no criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, whereas the present applicant has a previous criminal case under the NDPS Act of the year 2015. Further, a large quantity of contraband, i.e., 19 kilograms of ganja, has been recovered in this case, which shows the gravity of the offence and his involvement in illegal activities as such, he is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. 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 it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail 4 application of applicant – Purshottam Sahu, involved in Crime No. 39/2025 registered at Police Station – Saliha, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. 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 Kunal