1 2026:CGHC:23082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3387 of 2026 Mohammad Kaif S/o Mohammad Jahid Aged About 23 Years R/o Town Phalod, Near Darbar Maholla, Tehsil Mawana, P.S. Town Phalod, Distt. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhawani, Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bennoon, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 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. 391/2025 registered at Police Station – Chhawani, Durg, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b), 2(c) & 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.05.15 18:32:31 +0530 2 1985. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 24.07.2025, Assistant Sub- Inspector Itwari Dehre posted at Chhavni Police Station received a secret information at about 17:00 hours that two persons, namely Mohd. Kaif Abbasi and Usman Qureshi, residents of Meerut and Bagpat respectively, were standing near C-Mart on the National Highway within the jurisdiction of the said police station, carrying ganja in trolley suitcases and searching for customers as well as accommodation. Acting upon the said information, the police recorded the same, summoned independent witnesses, prepared the requisite panchnama under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, and proceeded to the spot. Upon reaching there, the police team surrounded the suspects and, after informing them of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, conducted their search. Though no incriminating article was found during personal search, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was recovered from the pocket of accused Mohd. Kaif Abbasi, and upon search of the trolley suitcases, four packets wrapped in khaki tape containing ganja were recovered, weighing in total 21.393 kilograms, out of which 10.603 kilograms was recovered from Mohd. Kaif Abbasi and 10.790 kilograms from Usman Qureshi, valued at approximately Rs.2,12,000/-. The seized contraband was tested, weighed, sealed and seized as per procedure. During interrogation, the accused persons allegedly disclosed under Section 27 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam that one Sarfaraz 3 Qureshi had sent them from Delhi to Sukma for transportation of the contraband for monetary consideration. Since the accused failed to produce any valid license or authority for possession of the contraband, they were arrested and offence under Sections 20(b) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act was registered against them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The entire case is based on documentary and seized material evidence, which is already in the custody of the prosecution; therefore, there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, no offence under Sections 20(b), 2(c) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant had no prior acquaintance with the co-accused persons and has been unnecessarily implicated in the matter. It is further contended that the applicant is a young man, a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, having both movable and immovable properties there, and thus there is no possibility of his absconding or evading the process of law. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and undertakes to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting him bail. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant is involved in a serious offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity of contraband. It is contended that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant and the seizure was effected strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the NDPS Act. Learned State counsel further submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to prima facie establish the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the offence. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the quantity of contraband seized, and the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is argued that the applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail and the application is liable 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, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on record, it is evident that contraband ganja weighing 21.393 kilograms has been seized from the joint possession of the applicant, which prima facie falls within the category of commercial quantity under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The applicants has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding their possession of the said contraband. The recovery 5 of such a substantial quantity of ganja prima facie indicates their involvement in illicit trafficking of narcotic substances, which constitutes a serious offence under the NDPS Act. Considering the gravity of the offence, the statutory rigour contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the material available on record, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Mohammad Kaif, involved in Crime No. 391/2025 registered at Police Station – Chhawani, Durg, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Section20(b), 2(c) & 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav