1 2026:CGHC:23010 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C No.4566 of 2026 1 - Ganesh Majumdar S/o Ganga Majumdar Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village- Gopalpur Police Station - Banshihari District- Dinajpur (West Bengal) 2 - Laxmi Dulai W/o Kanchan Dulai Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Village Tikiyapara Police Station - Beharampur District- Mushirdabad (West Bengal) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Singhoda District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Manan Agrawal along with Mr. Adarsh Mishra and Harsh Dave, Advocates. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smiti Shrivastava, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.05.15 13:49:07 +0530 2 1. This is the 2nd bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the Applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.60/2023 registered at Police Station – Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. The earlier application was rejected vide order dated 10.03.2025 passed in M.Cr.C No.1971/2025. 2. As per the brief prosecution story, on 29.06.2023, during vehicle checking on National Highway-53 by the police officials of Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, a white Maruti Dzire bearing Registration No.CG-04-KT-7994 coming from the Odisha side was intercepted. The vehicle was allegedly occupied by the present Applicants and upon search, eight plastic bags containing suspected ganja were recovered from the rear portion of the vehicle. The total quantity of the seized contraband was found to be 200 kilograms. Based on these allegations, the aforesaid offence was registered against the present Applicants. Hence this application. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in 3 the present case. It is further submitted that out of 14 witnesses, 9 have been examined till date and some of the prosecution and seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. He further submits the in SLP (Crl.) No.14639/2025, the Supreme Court has directed that trial Court shall complete examination of the material witnesses within a period of 2 months. It is lastly submitted that the Applicants are in jail since 29.06.2023 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion before the trial court, therefore, they may be granted regular bail. 4. On the other hand, opposing the prayer for regular bail, learned Counsel for the State submits that the allegations against the Applicants are serious, involving recovery of a substantial quantity of ganja, approximately 200 kilograms. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the Applicants is, therefore, necessary to enable effective investigation. Accordingly, it is prayed that the application for regular bail be rejected and the Applicants be directed to remain in judicial custody pending further investigation and trial. 5. Upon perusal of the case diary and the material on record, this Court observes that the allegations against the Applicants 4 are grave, involving the recovery of approximately 200 kilograms of ganja from the joint possession of the Applicants. The offence falls under the provisions of the NDPS Act, which carries significant statutory consequences and is required to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. The recovered narcotic substance, being of substantial quantity, underscores the seriousness of the offence and the potential impact on public health and safety. The investigation in the present case is still at a crucial stage. Only 9 out of 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and important aspects of the case including identification of co-accused and collection of corroborative evidence, remain incomplete. Custodial interrogation of the Applicants is, therefore, necessary for effective and proper investigation. It is also noted that an earlier bail application by the Applicants had been considered and rejected by this Court, indicating the continuing gravity of the allegations and the need for judicial control over the investigative process. While the period of incarceration already undergone by the Applicants exceeds two years and 11 months, this alone cannot be treated as a ground for bail in a matter of such seriousness. 6. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Vigin K. Varghese (Special Leave 5 Petition (Cri.) Nos.7768 of 2025 and 11097 of 2025) decided on 13.11.2025 has observed that in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for bail. 7. Considering the fact that the contraband article, i.e., ganja, recovered from the joint possession of the Applicants was above commercial quantity, further considering that the first bail application of the Applicants was rejected on merits by this Court and further considering the fact that the trial is in progress and in SLP (Crl.) No.14639/2025, a direction was issued to the trial Court to complete examination of the material witnesses within the period mentioned therein, failing which the Applicants may renew their prayer for bail and also considering that out of 14 witnesses, 9 have already been examined and have turned hostile, this Court is of the opinion that if the Applicants are released on bail at this stage, it would prejudice the trial. Further, in light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vigin K. Varghese (supra) that in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for bail, I do not find any good ground to entertain this second bail application. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the Applicant – Ganesh Majumdar and Laxmi Dulai involved in Crime No.60/2023 6 registered at Police Station – Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, is hereby rejected. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditioulsy, preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya