1 2026:CGHC:8815 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1737 of 2026 Abdul Moin @ Rocky S/o Abdul Mobin, Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Salman Pan Palace, Madni Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .. Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Netram Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/02/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 155/2025, registered at Police Station : Tikrapara, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the applicant was found in possession of 70 bottles of 100 ml each (totaling 7000 ml) of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Winscerex Cough Syrup (commercial quantity), containing Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride, in violation of the Rules and Orders framed under the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985, thereby attracting an offence under Sections 8(c) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 have not been complied with. The Investigating OfÏcer allegedly sent information to the CSP but, without awaiting instructions, proceeded further and summoned witnesses, which is evident from the discrepancy in timings mentioned in the notice to witnesses and the Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama. The said Panchnama was not endorsed in the Rojnamcha Sanha and the requirement under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was not duly complied with, as the notice appears to be an afterthought. It is further submitted that compliance of Section 50 of the Act was not properly made, as the notice was neither read over nor explained to the applicant and his signatures were merely obtained on a typed document without written consent. Serious doubts have also been raised regarding the manner of alleged seizure, preparation of seizure memo, sample seal memo and identification memo, as well as the absence of clear particulars of the seized articles. The chain of custody is also questioned, particularly with respect to malkhana entries, deposit after sampling and dispatch to the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is further argued that the alleged sealed articles could not have contained detailed particulars at the time of deposit, which creates suspicion about the genuineness of the 3 seizure. The certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is also alleged to be an afterthought prepared at the police station. It is further submitted that, in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicant is in judicial custody since 25.02.2025, and he has no criminal antecedents and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of the applicant is above the commercial quantity. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to be granted bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that the quantity of above-mentioned contraband article which has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, is much above the commercial quantity and further the case diary reveals that the involvement of the applicant in the present case, appears to be reasonable and it cannot be a case of false implication and the applicant has failed to give an explanation for the same. In such a situation, considering the nature and quantity of the seized narcotic substance, it would not be justified to grant bail to the applicant/accused. 7. Therefore, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused– Abdul Moin @ Rocky involved in Crime No. 155/2025, registered at Police Station : Tikrapara, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act, is 4 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal