1 2026:CGHC:8806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1612 of 2026 Purandar Yadav S/o Pitambar Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Hardijhariya, Police Station Bagbahar, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2026 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. 128/2025 registered at Police Station- Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B), 29 of the NDPS and Section 111, 335(1) of the BNS. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution case, on 13.05.2025 the police received information from an informant that certain persons were transporting illegal contraband. Acting upon the said information, the police party reached the spot and intercepted two vehicles, namely a car bearing registration No. CG-14-R-8202 and another car bearing registration No. CG-10-AT-6949, which were allegedly coming from Odisha. Upon being stopped, the occupants of the vehicles attempted to flee, however, the present applicant was apprehended at the spot. During search, the police allegedly recovered 29 kilograms of Ganja from one vehicle and 32 kilograms from the other vehicle, totaling 61 kilograms of contraband. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded. On the basis of the said memorandum and seizure, Crime No. 128/2025 was registered against the present applicant and other absconding persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.01.2026 passed in MCRC No. 460/2026. The present second bail application has been preferred on the ground that there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant under the N.D.P.S. Act. He further submits that the alleged contraband was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant, as the Ganja was seized from the vehicles and not from his personal possession. It is also argued that the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with by the prosecution, thereby entitling the applicant to be released on bail. Learned 3 counsel submits that, as per the prosecution case itself, the contraband was recovered from the cars and at the time of seizure the applicant was not sitting in the said vehicles, rather he was apprehended in a forest area, therefore, the seized contraband cannot be said to belong to him. It is further submitted that the applicant is in custody since 13.05.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and despite lapse of about eight months, there has been no substantial progress in the trial hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the bail application and submits that a total of 61 kilograms of contraband Ganja has been seized from the possession of the present applicant along with other co-accused persons, which is far above the notified commercial quantity of 20 kilograms. It is contended that in view of the recovery of commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are attracted and the applicant has failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions for grant of bail. Therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that a total of 61 Kgs of Ganja has been seized in the present case, which is much above the notified commercial quantity of 20 kilograms. In view of the recovery of commercial quantity, the rigours of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are attracted. The contention regarding non- 4 exclusive possession and alleged non-compliance of mandatory provisions are matters to be examined during trial. Considering the gravity of the offence, the quantity of contraband involved, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant- Purandar Yadav filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 128/2025 registered at Police Station- Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B), 29 of the NDPS and Section 111, 335(1) of the BNS, stands rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rahul Dewangan