1 2026:CGHC:7851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1393 of 2026 Shirajees Salkin Son Of Arif Khan Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Town And City Housing Development Colony, Buland Shahar Road, Police Station - Hapur, District - Hapur City, ( Uttar Pradesh). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Station Incharge Police Station Tongpal District - Sukma, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Palash Prakash Rajani, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Bhaskar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.02.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 15/2025 registered at Police Station – Tongpal, District- Sukma, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 8079 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Police of Police Station. Tongpal, District- Sukma (C.G.) received secret information from the informant alleging that some unknown persons have kept illegal contraband Ganja in their vehicle to sale and police has seized 117.180 kgs contraband from open place thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits. This is the second bail application of the applicant on the ground that no narcotic substance of any kind was recovered from the applicant. The alleged recovery shown by the police is entirely false, fabricated, and baseless, and false evidence has been created by the prosecution. The applicant is not engaged in any trade or business of narcotic substances (ganja), nor is he involved in such activities, nor does he consume any intoxicating substance. He also submits that there is no independent public eyewitness to the alleged incident. The First Information Report was lodged with a delay of one day, for which no explanation has been provided, thereby rendering the entire prosecution case false and doubtful. The police of the concerned police station failed to comply with the directions of the Human Rights Commission and falsely arrested the applicant and implicated him in the present case. The police of the concerned police station falsely planted narcotic substances and wrongfully implicated the applicant and co-accused persons, whereas the applicant has not committed any such act. 3 The applicant had gone out with his friends when the police of Police Station Tongpal stopped him. He later submits that on the pretext of checking the vehicle, the police demanded money from the applicant, and upon his refusal, falsely planted narcotic substances and implicated him in this case. It is specifically noteworthy that the alleged incident took place at a public place, however, the prosecution failed to comply with the provisions of Section 100(4) of the BNSS. The prosecution failed to record the information received from the secret informer in writing as required under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution has not made any averment that, despite the applicant’s request, he was produced before any Gazetted OfÏcer or Magistrate as required under Section 52 of the NDPS Act. Further, the applicant is in jail since 24.07.2025 and the trial has not yet concluded. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Hence, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh and total 23 packets of contraband article (Ganja) i.e. 117.180 Kgs have been recovered from the joint possession of the present applicant and other co-accused persons, which is more than the commercial quantity. As the offence is considered part of an organized crime, the first bail application was rejected by this Court on merit vide 4 order dated 12.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8079/2025. He further submits that the second bail application of the other co- accused person, namely Wasim Ahmad, was rejected by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 1411/2026 vide order dated 11.02.2026, and as such, the applicant is also not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. 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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits on the ground that the quantity of the psychotropic substance i.e. total 117.180 Kgs of Ganja seized from the joint possession of the applicant along with other co-accused, which was above the commercial quantity and the applicant has failed to give any explanation for the same, further it cannot be a case of false implication and that the offence appeared to a part of organized crime, also in the light of observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) (supra) that in NDPS commercial- quantity cases, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for 5 bail, further that fact that the second bail applications of similarly placed co-accused person, namely Wasim Ahmad, was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1411/2026 vide order dated 11.02.2026, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 9. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant - Shirajees Salkin, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, involved in Crime No. 15/2025 registered at Police Station – Tongpal, District : Sukuma (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. 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