1 2026:CGHC:6378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1265 of 2026 • Sitaram Sahu S/o Shri Bahurram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Kuleshwari Medical And General Store, Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Deputy Director, Food And Drugs Administration, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Devershi Tahkur, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 09/2026, registered at before Judicial magistrate 1st Class, Rajim, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 27(c), 27(b)(i), 27(b)(ii), 27(d), 28 and 28(a) of Drugs and Consmetics Act, 1940. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that on 21.07.2025, on the basis of VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.02.05 11:12:06 +0530 2 information allegedly received from an informant, the Drug Inspector, namely Dharamveer Singh Dhruv, along with Sunil Kumar Kharanshu and Satish Kumar Soni, reached the premises of Kuleshwar Medical and General Stores, Rajim, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajim. Upon inspection of the said medical store, which is owned and operated by the present applicant/accused Sitaram Sahu, certain quantities of Besto Cough Syrup were found stored in the shop along with other medicines kept for sale in the ordinary course of business. It is further alleged that on 18.08.2025, information was sought from the alleged manufacturer unknown Biotech Private Limited, Haridwar, and the marketer Bestokam Formulations Limited, Delhi, who purportedly stated that the said cough syrup was neither manufactured nor marketed by them and that the product was an expired and incorrect formulation. The prosecution further alleges that the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) was not printed on the bottle of the seized syrup, Therefore medicine were kept in the not selling box at medical shop of present applicant. Therefore, FIR has been registered against the applicant, hence this bail application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.157 of 2026 vide order dated 02.02.2026 and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 03.11.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 3 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. He further submits that contraband article i.e., Besto Cough Syrup was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, therefore he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and co- accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.157 of 2026 vide order dated 02.02.2026, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 03.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant, Sitaram Sahu, involved in Crime No.09/2026, registered at before Judicial magistrate 1st Class, Rajim, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 27(c), 27(b)(i), 27(b)(ii), 27(d), 28 and 28(a) of Drugs and Consmetics Act, 1940, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial 4 court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant 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 under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is 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 him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerpned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali