1 2026:CGHC:24447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5225 of 2026 Mahendra Sagar S/o Raju Sagar Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Badrathakur, Police Station- Pathariya, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) .. Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/06/2026 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. 465/2024 registered at Police Station Takathpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.09.2024, the police received information from an informant that one Amit Thakur, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 a resident of Tikrapara, Takhatpur, was roaming on Pandariya Road in a white Swift car bearing registration No. CG-10 AN-1282, carrying illegal narcotic substances for sale and searching for potential customers. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid at the indicated spot and found a person sitting inside the aforesaid vehicle. He was asked to step out of the car and, upon inquiry, disclosed his name as Amit Thakur. During his personal search, four (04) Rexogesic ampoules wrapped in a Lux soap wrapper were recovered from the left pocket of his pant. Thereafter, a search of the vehicle was conducted, during which fifty (50) Rexogesic ampoules, packed in a black polythene bag and kept inside a pink cloth pouch concealed beneath the seat cover behind the driver's seat, were recovered and seized. The memorandum statement of accused Amit Thakur was subsequently recorded, wherein he disclosed that he had purchased the seized narcotic substances from Mahendra Sagar, pursuant to the said disclosure, 300 Rexogesic ampoules containing Buprenorphine (2 ml each) were allegedly recovered and seized from the conscious possession of the applicant/accused. The record further reveals that the applicant/accused is alleged to be the main supplier of the contraband substance and that commercial quantity of the narcotic drug was recovered from his conscious possession. Therefore, the police of Police Station Takhatpur registered Crime No. 465/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and arrested the accused. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submits that one of the co-accused, namely, Lalita Sagar, whose bail application was earlier rejected by this Court, was subsequently granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.02.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 55180/2025. She further submits that other co-accused persons, namely, Anjali Gendle, Dharmendra Gendle, Sanjeev Kumar Chhabda and Brijlal @ Bugala Kurre, have also been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 7521/2025, MCRC No. 9229/2025 and MCRC No. 3628/2026 vide orders dated 18.09.2025, 01.04.2026 and 22.04.2026 respectively. It is contended that the alleged implication of the applicant is solely based on the memorandum statement of co- accused Amit Thakur recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and except for such disclosure statement, there is no legally admissible material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. No contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant and he was not apprehended from the spot. It is further submitted that the memorandum statement of a co-accused is a weak piece of evidence and cannot by itself constitute substantive evidence against the applicant. Learned counsel submits that the principle of parity squarely applies in favour of the applicant inasmuch as all similarly situated co- accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, whereas the applicant continues to remain in custody. It is argued that the role attributed to the applicant is not distinguishable from that of the co- 4 accused who have been granted bail and, therefore, denial of bail to the applicant would amount to hostile discrimination. It is further submitted that the applicant has remained in custody for a considerable period, the trial is likely to take time for its conclusion and there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that a commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered in the present case and the allegations against the applicant are grave in nature. It is further submitted that the applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused persons who have been granted bail. He points out that co-accused Lalita Sagar was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court primarily on account of her being a woman suffering from serious gynecological ailments and also because no contraband article was recovered from her possession. Likewise, co-accused Anjali Gendle and Sanjeev Kumar Chhabda were granted bail as no recovery of contraband was effected from them and their implication was based only upon memorandum statements. In contrast, pursuant to the memorandum statement recorded during investigation, 300 Rexogesic ampoules containing Buprenorphine, which constitute commercial quantity, were allegedly recovered and seized from the conscious possession of the present applicant, who is stated to be the main supplier of the contraband substance. It is therefore contended that the role attributed to the applicant is distinct and 5 more serious than that of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail and, consequently, the principle of parity is not applicable. Considering the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned State counsel prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary as well as the material available on record, it appears that co-accused Amit Thakur was apprehended in possession of Rexogesic ampoules and during investigation, disclosed the name of the present applicant as the person from whom the seized contraband substance had been procured. The investigation further reveals that pursuant to such disclosure, 300 Rexogesic ampoules containing Buprenorphine (2 ml each), constituting commercial quantity, were allegedly recovered and seized from the conscious possession of the present applicant. Prima facie, the material collected during investigation indicates the involvement of the applicant in the alleged supply and distribution of narcotic substances and suggests that he was playing a pivotal role in the commission of the offence. The contention of the applicant regarding parity also does not appear to be acceptable at this stage. Co-accused Lalita Sagar was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on grounds peculiar to her case that she is a lady suffering from serious gynecological ailments and no contraband article was recovered from her possession. Similarly, co-accused Anjali Gendle and Sanjeev 6 Kumar Chhabda were enlarged on bail primarily on the ground that no recovery of contraband was effected from them and their implication was based upon memorandum statements recorded during investigation. The case of the present applicant stands on a different footing inasmuch as commercial quantity of contraband is alleged to have been recovered from his conscious possession and he is alleged to be the source supplier of the narcotic substance seized in the present case. Therefore, the role attributed to the applicant is distinct from that of the co-accused persons who have been granted bail and consequently, the principle of parity is not attracted. 7. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant, the specific role attributed to him in the supply chain of the narcotic substance and the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is unable to record its satisfaction that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offences alleged against him or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In such circumstances, no case for grant of bail is made out. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Mahendra Sagar filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., involved in Crime No. 465/2024 registered at Police Station Takathpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 7 9. Needless to say that the trial concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal