1 2026:CGHC:24424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5191 of 2026 Mohammad Hasim S/o Mohammad Asfak Aged About 32 Years Resident Of House No. 817, Kila Kona, Kali Masjid, Hapud Police Station Kotwali, Hapud, District- Hapud (U.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Tongpal District- - Sukma (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, 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. 16/2025 registered at Police Station – Tongpal District- - Sukma (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Police Station Tongpal, Sukma (C.G.), had received secret information from the informant and on the basis of the said information the police RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 authority started checking vehicles at Narcotics Jaanch Naka N.H. 30. Then, a vehicle bearing registration No. U.P. 37- Z- 2636 white Triber was stopped and after conducting the raid, the police authority have seized 122.370 kgs of contraband Ganja in 24 packets from the joint possession of the present applicant and other co-accused namely Nabil Khan. Thereafter, the Police has registered the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against the present applicant and other co-accused. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the alleged contraband was recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused and the applicant is neither the owner of the seized vehicle nor was he in exclusive conscious possession of the contraband. He further submits that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and the Standing Orders governing sampling and seizure have not been duly complied with, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. It is also argued that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the relatives of the applicant in the manner prescribed by law, rendering the arrest legally questionable. He points out that the independent witnesses, namely P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in jail since 30.07.2025, only 3 out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. The 3 charge-sheet has filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, and the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court however, the quantity of contraband article which has been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant along with co-accused, is much above the commercial quantity. She also submits that the bail application of the other co-accused person namely, Nabil Khan, has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 554/2026, vide order dated 13.02.2026, and as such, the applicant is also not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the contraband article which has been seized from the joint possession of the applicant along with co-accused, is much above the commercial quantity and the applicant has failed to give an explanation regarding the same and it cannot be a case of false implication, further the bail application of the other co-accused person namely, Nabil Khan, has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 554/2026, vide order dated 13.02.2026, hence, this Court does not find a fit case to release the applicant on regular bail. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Mohammad Hasim, involved in Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station – Tongpal District- - Sukma (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of 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