1 2026:CGHC:22673 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3273 of 2026 Akhuja @ Ankuja Mahanand S/o Rajaram Mahanand Aged About 42 Years R/o Kabattalai, Police Station Sonpur, District Subharnapur (Odisha). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer Police Station Masturi District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. K. S. Pradhan, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.05.2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 429/2025 registered at Police Station- Masturi District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 7964/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 on merits. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on receipt of a secret information, the concerned police authorities conducted a raid and allegedly recovered a total quantity of 20.100 kg of contraband ganja from the possession of the other main accused persons. It is further alleged that the present applicant has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the main accused persons, who are stated to be in possession of the said contraband substance. The aforesaid facts are evident from the FIR, copy whereof is annexed herewith as Annexure A. Hence, the present application for grant of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application, as the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Hon’ble Court on merits. It is further submitted that co-accused Vinod Kumar, whose bail application was earlier rejected by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 8470/2025 vide order dated 11.11.2025, preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the matter, was pleased to grant bail to the said co-accused in SLP (Criminal) No. 19291/2025 vide order dated 01.04.2026, on the ground that no recovery was made from his possession. It is further submitted that another co-accused namely Adip Kumar Verma @ Tengana has also been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 3344/2026 vide order dated 13.04.2026 on the ground that no seizure was made from his possession. He submits that in view of 3 the bail granted to the co-accused persons by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Hon’ble Court in identical facts and circumstances, and considering that no recovery or seizure has been effected from the possession of the present applicant as well, the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in jail since 22.08.2025. So far as the progress of trial is concerned, out of 23 prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined so far, charge-sheet has been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail on the ground of parity. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Hon’ble Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that this is the second bail application and the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits, further the fact that the co-accused Vinod Kumar, whose bail application was earlier rejected by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 8470/2025 vide order dated 11.11.2025, thereafter preferred a 4 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 19291/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 01.04.2026 was pleased to grant bail to the said co-accused on the ground that no recovery was effected from his possession. Further the fact that another co-accused namely Adip Kumar Verma @ Tengana has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3344/2026 vide order dated 13.04.2026 on the similar ground that no seizure was made from his possession. It further appears that the present applicant stands on the same footing as that of the co- accused persons and that no contraband has been recovered or seized from his possession as well. Further considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is in jail 22.08.2025, charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion as out of 23 prosecution witnesses only two witnesses have been examined so far. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the principle of parity as well as the settled principles governing grant of bail, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Akhuja @ Ankuja Mahanand, involved in Crime No. 429/2025 registered at Police Station- Masturi District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court 5 concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is 6 deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 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 Rahul Dewangan