1 2026:CGHC:4943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 958 of 2026 Mahendra Tandan S/o Sudharam Tandan, Aged About 45 Years R/o Lalkhadan, Near To The Chowkse College From Darrighat Chowk, Police Station Torwa, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jutemill, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2026 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. 381/2024 registered at Police Station – Jutemill, District- Raigarh, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of secret information received on 28.08.2024, Inspector Mohan Bhardwaj of RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Police Station Jute Mill, Raigarh, conducted a raid near the Kodatarai airstrip within the jurisdiction of the said police station. During the raid, two sacks containing ganja were seized from a white Alto car bearing registration No. CG-13/AS-6967 and three sacks were seized from a Tata S Gold car bearing registration No. CG-13/AM-2987, totaling about 175 kilograms of narcotic substance (ganja), which was allegedly being transported for the purpose of sale, in the presence of independent witnesses. On the basis of the said seizure, Crime No. 381/2024 was registered at Police Station Jute Mill, Raigarh, for offences under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and investigation was undertaken. During the course of investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statement of accused Santram Khunte, two vehicles, six mobile phones and cash were seized, and it was revealed that the accused persons, namely Bhagwat Sahu, Deepak @ Nanhu Bhardwaj, Vyomkesh @ Vyoma and Kishore Sahu, were jointly involved in smuggling ganja. The accused were arrested and, upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed, hence the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as no contraband substance, namely ganja, has been seized from his possession. It is contended that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with and even the raid proceedings were not photographed at the spot, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the memorandum and seizure witnesses have not supported the 3 prosecution case and have turned hostile, including independent spot witnesses P.W.-1 Devkumar Sahu and P.W.-5 Harishankar Sao. Out of 22 prosecution witnesses, only 11 witnesses have been examined so far, indicating that the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. The applicant has remained in custody since 28.08.2024, i.e., for more than one year and four months. He further submits that the co-accused, namely Vyomesh Khatua and Deepak @ Nanhu Bhardwaj, who are similarly situated, have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide common order dated 17.11.2025 passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 14183/2025 and S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 15232/2025, and the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. It is also argued that no memorandum statement of the present applicant has been recorded and his arrest is based merely on suspicion, without any substantive incriminating material against him. Hence, on these grounds, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. She further submits that the offence is serious in nature and pertains to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance. It is contended that during the raid conducted on 28.08.2024, a total of 175 kg of ganja was seized, out of which 35.100 kg was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the present applicant, which itself is above the commercial quantity. She further submits that the co-accused persons who have been granted bail 4 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court stand on a different footing, as from their possession only mobile phones, cash and vehicles were seized, whereas, the present applicant was directly found in conscious and exclusive possession of a substantial quantity of contraband. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the nature of recovery, and the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the material available on record, it is evident that pursuant to the raid conducted on 28.08.2024, a total quantity of 175 kg of ganja was seized, out of which 35.100 kg was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the present applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the Act. Though, the co-accused persons had earlier approached this Court and were denied bail, and thereafter approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 14183/2025 and 15232/2025, which were allowed vide order dated 17.11.2025, however, the said co-accused stand on a different footing, as from their possession only mobile phones, cash and vehicles were seized, and no contraband was recovered from their exclusive possession. In contrast, the present applicant was found in conscious possession of a substantial quantity of ganja above commercial quantity, which clearly distinguishes his case from that 5 of the co-accused. Further the applicant has failed to give any explanation for the same, and it cannot be a case of false implication. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Mahendra Tandan, involved in Crime No. 381/2024 registered at Police Station – Jutemill, District- Raigarh, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court 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 forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan