1 2026:CGHC:7424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 333 of 2026 Abhinav Sharma S/o Rajkumar Sharma, Aged About 21 Years Old, R/o Shankar Nagar, Sector 01, Pipeline Factory Gali, P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (In Order Sheet Fathers Name Mentioned In Short As Raja Sharma) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 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. 233/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Line District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.11 10:40:21 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.10.2025, acting on information received from an informant, the police of Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur, in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, conducted a search and seized nine packs of banned psychotropic tablets/capsules, each containing 24 tablets (total 216 tablets) weighing 131.76 grams, from the dickey of a green scooter belonging to co-accused Pradeep Deep at a place opposite Durga Nagar, Canal Road, Civil Lines, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). During the course of investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, the present applicant/accused was arrested and implicated in the case. Consequently, Crime No. 568/2025 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, and the applicant has been charged under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court. As per the notification issued by the Central Government, the small quantity of Tramadol tablets/capsules is 5 grams and the commercial quantity is 250 grams, whereas in the present case, the total seized quantity of Tramadol tablets/capsules from the co-accused Pradeep Deep is 131.76 grams. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that applicant has not committed any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Pradeep Deep, without any independent evidence or recovery from his possession. He has been in judicial custody since 07.12.2025 and continued detention would cause 3 serious prejudice to his future, particularly as he is a young person of 21 years with no criminal antecedents. The prosecution case is based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations, and no seizure has been made from the applicant in connection with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the medicines allegedly seized Tramadol Hydrochloride, Dicyclomine Hydrochloride and Paracetamol are commonly used pharmaceutical ingredients and the proceedings initiated under the NDPS Act suffer from legal and procedural irregularities, including discrepancies regarding the applicable provisions and preparation of the weight panchnama. The applicant contends that his arrest merely on the basis of the co-accused’s memorandum violates his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and has adversely affected his reputation. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration would amount to unjust punishment, contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, and State of Kerala v. Raneef. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, has strong roots in society, is not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence, and undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court; hence, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the contraband article recovered from the possession of the applicant is less than the commercial quantity as prescribed under the NDPS Act. Further, considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, and that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 07.12.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicant - Abhinav Sharma, involved in Crime No. 233/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Line District – Raipur (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 local 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 she 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 her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya 5 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 sufficient 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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav