1 2026:CGHC:8863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1675 of 2026 Abdul Aleem S/o Abdul Subhani Aged About 27 Years R/o M I G - 1/94, HUDCO, Amadi Nagar, Ward 56, Post, Bhilai West, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - The SHO, Police Station Padmanabhpur Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.02.2026 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. 326/2025 registered at Police Station – Padmanabhpur, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 22(C), 27(A), 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 318(4), 338, 340(2), 336(3), 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Padmanabhpur Police Station received secret information on 16.09.2025 from an informer that a co- accused, namely Vaibhav Khandelwal, was in possession of narcotic ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.19 17:36:04 +0530 2 substances at his residence. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid at his house situated at Quarter No. 35, Street No. 4, Banshi Vihar, Pradiptinagar, Borsi, P.S. Padmanabhpur, District Durg (C.G.), and seized various contraband articles, including Alprazolam tablets (196 strips valued at Rs. 8,820/-, 80 strips valued at Rs. 2,560/-, and 265 strips valued at Rs. 25,440/-), Nitrazepam tablets (162 strips valued at Rs. 10,854/- and 110 strips valued at Rs. 8,250/-), Tramadol Hydrochloride and Dicyclomine capsules (111 strips valued at Rs. 7,104/-), Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride syrup (12 bottles valued at Rs. 2,324/-), along with cash amounting to Rs. 1,510/- and other articles. On the basis of the said seizure, Crime No. 326/2025 was registered against the co-accused for offences punishable under Sections 8, 22(C), 27(A), and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 318(4), 338, 340(2), 336(3), and 111 of the BNS, and he was arrested. During investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co- accused, the present applicant was also arrested on 21.09.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that all the offences alleged against the present applicant are triable by the same Court, and the police have not complied with the provisions of Sections 105 and 185 of the BNSS. Further, no videography of the seizure was conducted, and this material fact has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. He submits that as per the prosecution allegations, the present applicant was neither present at the time of the incident nor was any psychotropic substance seized from his exclusive possession. However, the police have shown the seizure of 15 pieces of Alprazolam tablets valued at Rs. 50/- from the possession of the present applicant. The applicant was arrested only on the basis of the 3 memorandum statement of the co-accused, five days after the incident. This fact has not been considered by the learned Sessions Court, thereby resulting in a legal error. He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 21.09.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that in the present matter the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the bail of other co-accused person, namely, Kunal Yadav in MCRC No. 550 of 2026 has already been rejected by this Court, vide order dated 15.01.2026, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is also entitled to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the bail of other co-accused person, namely, Kunal Yadav in MCRC No. 550 of 2026 has already been rejected by this Court, vide order dated 15.01.2026 on merits, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is also entitled to be rejected. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Abdul Aleem, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 326/2025 registered at Police Station – Padmanabhpur, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 22(C), 27(A), 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 318(4), 338, 340(2), 336(3), 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and 4 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 Abhishek