Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18821 (CHH)

KESHAV PRASAD YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/4477/2026 · 2026-05-12

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:22626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4477 of 2026 Keshav Prasad Yadav S/o Niranjan Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Baiskimunda, Police Station Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lailunga District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.05.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.58/2025 registered at Police Station- Lailunga District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b), 29 of the NDPS Act. 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, on the basis of secret information received by the police, Assistant Sub-Inspector Chandan Singh Netam of Police Station Lailunga conducted a raid on 02.03.2025 at village Jambahar Katelpura Chiktanara, District Raigarh (C.G.). During the raid, the police allegedly recovered and seized 09 packets containing a total of 09 kilograms of ganja, packed in a plastic sack and wrapped with khaki coloured paper, from the conscious possession of accused Gojaram Yadav, who was allegedly keeping the contraband for the purpose of sale. Accordingly, offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act was registered vide Crime No. 54/2025 and investigation was taken up. During investigation in Crime No. 58/2025, co-accused Natthu @ Ludro and Keshav Yadav, in their memorandum statements, allegedly disclosed that they had procured 60 kilograms of ganja from Odisha for sale to different persons and that, at the instance of accused Natthu @ Ludro, applicant/accused Keshav Yadav had supplied 09 kilograms of ganja to accused Gojaram Yadav for sale. On the basis of such memorandum statements, they were also arrested and, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against them. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application is the second bail application filed before this Court. The first bail application being MCRC No. 9047/2025 was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025. Thereafter, the applicant preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 3 No. 1497/2026 before the Supreme Court assailing the said order, which too came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2026. He further submits that the case against the applicant rests on circumstantial and weak evidence, and there is no direct material to establish his conscious possession, involvement in transportation, or sale of the alleged contraband ganja. He also submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 08.03.2025 and the trial is still pending before the learned Special Judge and there is no likelihood of its early conclusion. He later submits that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 and thereafter the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1497/2026 preferred by the applicant before the Supreme Court was also dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2026. She further submits that, total 22 kilograms of ganja kept in two plastic bags, each containing 11 kilograms, which is much above the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act involved in the present case and further, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has five criminal antecedents of the years 2021, 2023 and 2025, out of which, two are under the NDPS Act of the year 2025, as such applicant is a 4 habitual offender and his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that this is the second bail application filed by the applicant and the first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 in MCRC No. 9047/2025 on the ground that 22 kilograms of ganja, which is much above the commercial quantity, was involved in the present case and the involvement of present applicant is that he procured ganja from Odisha along with co-accused Natthu @ Ludro for the purpose of illegal sale and distribution, and allegedly supplied 09 kilograms of ganja to co-accused Gojaram Yadav for sale at the instance of Natthu @ Ludro, which shows prima-facie active involvement of the applicant in the illicit trafficking of narcotic substances along with other co-accused persons. Further, after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1497/2026 has been preferred by the applicant before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2026. Moreover, the applicant has five criminal antecedents, out of which, two are under the NDPS Act of the year 2025, which itself shows that the applicant is a habitual offender and has misused the liberty of bail granted to him earlier. On a pointed query being made to leaned counsel for the applicant regarding the status of trial, he is unable to answer the 5 said query, in view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant- Keshav Prasad Yadav, involved in Crime No.58/2025 registered at Police Station- Lailunga District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b), 29 of the NDPS Act, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and concluded the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil