1 2026:CGHC:1659 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10388 of 2025 Rama Yadav @ Parmanand Yadav S/o Late Narayan Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Indira Chowk, Ravanbhatha, Mahasamund, P.S. Mahasamund, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 367/2025, registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that FIR was lodged on August 28, 2025, at 21:30 hours. The case was initiated based on secret RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 information received by Inspector Sharad Dubey on August 28, 2025, that co-accused Mukesh Yadav was selling narcotic drugs in front of his house. A raid was conducted, and co-accused Mukesh Yadav apprehended. From his possession, a white polyethene bag containing 16 strips (128 capsules) of SPAS-TRASCEN-PLUS CAPSULES was recovered. The total quantity of the composition (Dicyciemine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride, Acetaminophen) recovered from Mukesh Yadav was 49,280 mg (49.280 grams), which falls under the category of Intermediate Quantity. Further Mukesh Yadav, during interrogation, revealed that he purchased-the-narcotic drugs from co- accused Raj Chandrakar and the present applicant, Rama Yadav, residing in Raipur/Mandir Hasaud, with the intention of illegal profit. During the course of the investigation, co-accused Raj Chandrakar was also apprehended, and 88 strips (704 capsules) of the same drug were recovered from his vehicle. The total quantity seized from Raj Chandrakar was 271040 mg (271.04 grams), which is above the Commercial Quantity. The Applicant, Rama Yadav @ Parmanand Yadav, was subsequently arrested on September 24, 2025 and there was no seizure from the applicant. Hence, this application. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is also submitted that no recovery of contraband article has been made from the possession of the applicant, moreover, the name of the applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of the co- accused Mukesh Yadav from whom the recovery of contraband article 3 has been made which is less than the commercial quantity, and co- accused Mukesh Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9665/2025, and the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the co- accused Raj Chandrakar from whom the contraband article has been seized which is more than commercial quantity. It is further submitted that there are 2 criminal antecedents of the applicant in which he has been acquitted, and he is in jail since 24.09.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and there are 2 criminal antecedents of the applicant. It is submitted that a total of 49.280 grams of composition of Dicyciemine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride, Acetaminophen has been recovered from the possession of the co-accused Mukesh Yadav which is less than commercial quantity, and a total of 88 strips of same drug totaling 271.04 Grams was recovered from the possession of the co- accused Raj Chandrakar, which is above the commercial quantity, therefore, this bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the fact that no recovery of contraband article has been made from the possession of the applicant, moreover, 4 the name of the applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of the co-accused Mukesh Yadav from whom the recovery of contraband article has been made which is less than the commercial quantity, and co-accused Mukesh Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9665/2025, and the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the co-accused Raj Chandrakar from whom the contraband article has been seized which is more than commercial quantity. Also considering the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and there are 2 criminal antecedents of the applicant in which he has been acquitted, and further that the applicant is in jail since 24.09.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take sometime, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant, Rama Yadav @ Parmanand Yadav involved in Crime No. 367/2025, registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two 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 he 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 his absence, without sufficient 5 cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar