1 2026:CGHC:10787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2065 of 2026 Shrawan Kumar S/o Bhajan Lal Vishnoi Aged About 20 Years R/o Village - Koja Dhorimanna, P.S. - Dhori- Manna Distt - Badmer (Rajasthan) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Chilfi, District – Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Arpit Parakh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, 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 to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 01/2025 registered at Police Station – Chilfi, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7655 of 2025. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a secret information was received by the Police of Police Station – Chilfi, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) through the informant and on the basis of such information, the Police has seized a total of 34.420 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested by the Police RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 and the aforesaid offence has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application of the applicant and the first bail application was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 7655 of 2025 on 23.09.2025. He would submit that the applicant is in jail since 01.01.2025, charge sheet has been filed. He further submits that the three prosecution witnesses have been examined who have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that though the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, but a total of 34.420 Kgs of Ganja have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity, therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant, and the first bail application was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 7655 of 2025 on 23.09.2025. Further the fact that the contraband article i.e. a total of 34.420 Kgs of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is above the commercial quantity. The ground raised in this second bail application is that the applicant has been in jail since 01.01.2025 and the three prosecution witnesses have been examined who have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. 3 8. Recently 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. 10. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant- Shrawan Kumar, involved in Crime No. 01/2025 registered at Police Station – Chilfi, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, is rejected. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 12. Office 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 Rajshekhar