1 2026:CGHC:5059 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1000 of 2026 1. Mohammed Javed S/o Late Mohammed Jaheer Aged About 48 Years R/o Khudabaans 50 Futaroad, Near Furniture Market Gadipusta Chowki, Rampark Extension, House of Santosh Gurjar, P.S. Tronica City, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. 2. Noorjahan W/o Shamim Aged About 43 Years R/o Pooja Colony Mangalbazaar, Near Crematorium, Tronica City, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 26/2025 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.30 12:25:28 +0530 2 2. The first bail application of the applicants was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 5256 of 2025 vide order dated 08.07.2025. 3. As per the prosecution story, on 04.02.2025, the police of Police Station Ganj, District Raipur, received secret information regarding a narcotic substance, i.e., ganja. Acting upon the said information, the police personnel conducted a raid at Gupta Guest House, where 21.610 kg of ganja was seized from the accused after completing the necessary formalities. Thereafter, an FIR was registered and, upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the competent Court. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the alleged contraband was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicants, but from a public place, and that the police have falsely implicated them in the crime. He further submits that the seized substance falls within the category of intermediate quantity. It is contended that from the possession of applicant No. 1, 10 kg 770 grams of ganja was seized, which is an intermediate quantity, and from the possession of applicant No. 2, 10 kg 840 grams of ganja was seized, which is also an intermediate quantity. He further submits that there are a total of 15 prosecution witnesses, out of which only four have been examined to date, and therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that a co-accused, namely Santosh Rath @ Tulsi Kosre @ Dhannu, has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 19621/2025 vide order dated 05.01.2026. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicants be granted regular bail on the ground of parity. 3 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submitted that although a co-accused, namely Santosh Rath @ Tulsi Kosre @ Dhannu, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 19621/2025 vide order dated 05.01.2026, the case of the present applicants is distinguishable, as the aforesaid contraband ganja was recovered from their possession. Therefore, they are not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into account that the first bail application of the applicants was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 5256 of 2025 vide order dated 08.07.2025, it is noted that a co-accused, namely Santosh Rath @ Tulsi Kosre @ Dhannu, has subsequently been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 19621/2025 vide order dated 05.01.2026. Although the case of the present applicants stands on a different footing, as the contraband article, i.e., ganja, was recovered from their possession, the applicants have been in custody since 04.02.2025. Out of 15 prosecution witnesses, only four have been examined so far, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. In view of the prolonged custody of the applicants and the slow progress of the trial, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 8. Let the Applicants - Mohammed Javed and Noorjahan, involved in Crime No. 26/2025 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and 4 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed 5 against them in accordance with law. 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 Abhishek