1 2026:CGHC:24136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3276 of 2026 Shivshankar Ramaji Katare S/o Late Ramaji Katare Aged About 55 Years R/o Baba Mastanshah Ward No. 13 Bhandara Present Address- Khatroad Ward No.07 Nearby P/s Bhandara District Bhandara. (Maharastra) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Fingeshwar District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gajanand, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.06.2026 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. 275/2025 registered at Police Station – Fingeshwar, District- Gariaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii)(C) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant/accused has been arraigned for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the allegation that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons for the illicit purchase and sale of narcotic substance (Ganja). It is alleged that, in furtherance of the said conspiracy, on 13.09.2025 at about 17:12 hours, near the Main Gate of Police Station Fingeshwar, Main Road, Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariaband (C.G.), the applicant, in connivance with the co-accused, was found to be in joint possession of and transporting a total quantity of 26.930 kgs of Ganja for the purpose of its unlawful sale, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the Rules and Orders framed thereunder. 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 no contraband has been recovered from the personal possession of the applicant and his implication is based merely on the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that though it is alleged that the co-accused were in telephonic contact with the applicant, no call detail record or any other document connecting the alleged phone calls with the applicant has been placed on record. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to appreciate these material facts and that the applicant has been unnecessarily implicated in the matter. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and, 3 therefore, his further custodial interrogation is not required. The applicant is in jail since 20.12.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. The applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and his continued incarceration is causing severe hardship to his dependents. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. She submits that the applicant is involved in a grave and serious offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that a total quantity of 26.930 kilograms of Ganja, which falls within the category of commercial quantity, has been seized in the present case and the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence as well as in the criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons. It is also submitted that the applicant has one criminal antecedent of similar nature under the NDPS Act in Crime No. 34/2016, is pending, which reflects his propensity to indulge in narcotic-related offences and indicates that he is a habitual offender. Considering the commercial quantity of contraband involved, the gravity and seriousness of the offence, and the applicant’s previous criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the case diary and the material available on record, and the fact that though the no contraband article has been recovered from the personal possession of the applicant, but the prosecution case reveals that a total quantity of 26.930 kilograms of Ganja, which is above commercial quantity, was seized in the course of the transaction allegedly carried out pursuant to a criminal conspiracy involving the applicant and the co- accused persons. At this stage, there is material collected during investigation prima facie indicating the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence and the conspiracy contemplated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Furthermore, the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent of similar nature under the NDPS Act in Crime No. 34/2016, is pending, which prima facie indicates his continued association with narcotic-related activities and lends support to the contention of the State that he is a habitual offender, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents. Considering the commercial quantity of contraband involved, the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, the prima facie material available against the applicant, and his criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 5 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Shivshankar Ramaji Katare, involved in Crime No. 275/2025 registered at Police Station – Fingeshwar, District- Gariaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office 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