1 2026:CGHC:1295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 130 of 2026 Rashid Ahmed S/o Saiyyad Badruddin Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Bisra Chowk, Rourkela, Sundergarh, District- Sundergarh (Odisha) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer Police Station, Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Altamas Zaheer Ali, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2026 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. 88/2025 registered at Police Station- Bagicha, District - Jashpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 24.04.2025, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Station Bagicha, namely Ramnath Ram, received information from an informant to the effect that one Ertiga vehicle bearing registration No. CG-12-BQ-1606 had met with an accident and that the driver of the said vehicle had sustained injuries KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 and was taken by ambulance for medical treatment. It was further informed that the said vehicle was loaded with a contraband article, namely Ganja. On the basis of the said information, the police personnel reached the spot and allegedly recovered 183.500 kilograms of contraband Ganja from the vehicle. Consequently, F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 88/2025 was registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and the applicant was arrested in connection with the said offence. 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 applicant sustained injuries during the incident when the police allegedly attempted to intercept him and he fell down. It is also submitted that the alleged contraband article, namely Ganja, was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant, but was allegedly recovered from the vehicle being driven by him and the applicant has no direct role in the alleged offence. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and in the present case the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submit that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant i.e. 183.500 Kgs of Ganja, is much above the 3 commercial quantity. Hence, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the case diary. 6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and further the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the vehicle of the applicant i.e. 183.500 Kgs of Ganja, is much above the commercial quantity and the said vehicle driven by the applicant and it appears that it is not a case of false implication further the applicant has failed to give a plausible explanation with regard to the same therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Rashid Ahmed filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., involved in Crime No. 88/2025 registered at Police Station- Bagicha, District - Jashpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce 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 Kunal