1 2026:CGHC:2457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9702 of 2025 Suryakant Manjhi S/o Shri Birju Manjhi Aged About 32 Years R/o - Village - Kendubahra, P.S.- Dharambandha, Khariyarroad, District - Nuwapada (Oddissa) --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. - Fingeshwar, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Non-applicant MCRC No. 9738 of 2025 Narendra Netam Son of Shri Chandarsai Netam Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Kandagadi, P.S. Chuura, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Fingeshwar, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) --- Non-applicant For Applicant (in MCRC No.9702/2025) : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. For Applicant (in MCRC No. 9738/2025) : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. Since the above-mentioned two bail applications arise out of same crime number, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.16 18:12:19 +0530 2 by this common order. 2. These are the first 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. 286/2025 registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20 (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on 19.09.2025 the police received information from an informant that an unknown person was in possession of illegal contraband (ganja) for the purpose of sale. Acting upon the said information, the police seized a total quantity of 4.100 kg of contraband ganja from the place of incident, which was recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons. Thereafter, a seizure memo was prepared. The applicant was arrested on 10.10.2025 on the basis of the memorandum statements of the other accused persons, who had already been arrested on 19.09.2025, 21.09.2025, and 08.10.2025 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that no contraband article was seized from the possession of the present applicants. The alleged contraband was seized from the exclusive possession of the co-accused persons. The applicants were arrested solely on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused and have thus been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the prosecution agency has failed to follow the mandatory provisions prescribed under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He also submits that co-accused persons, namely, Laxminarayan Baghel and Udhoram Baghel have been granted 3 bail by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2025 and 17.11.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 9191/2025 and 9237/2025. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 21.09.2025 and 10.10.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, they prayed for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse the said submission that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that no contraband article was seized from the possession of the present applicants, the alleged contraband was seized from the exclusive possession of the co-accused persons co-accused persons, namely, Laxminarayan Baghel and Udhoram Baghel have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2025 and 17.11.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 9191/2025 and 9237/2025 moreover, the present applicants have no criminal antecedents, also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and the applicants are in jail since 21.09.2025 and 10.10.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed. Let the Applicants - Suryakant Manjhi (in MCRC No. 9702/2025) and Narendra Netam (in 4 MCRC No. 9738/2025), involved in Crime No. 286/2025 registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20 (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each (MCRC No. 9738/2025) and two local sureties (in MCRC No. 9702/2025) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement 5 under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 9. 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 Preeti