1 2026:CGHC:24731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C No.5300 of 2026 Parmeshwar Dewangan Son Of Ramdhari, Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Songara (Piperpara), Police Station Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through -Station House Officer, Police Of Out Post Latori, Police Station Jainagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Ms. Ankita Shukla, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.06.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.06.19 11:39:32 +0530 2 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.81/2026 registered at Police Station – Outpost Latori, P.S Jainagar, District Surajpur (C.G.), for the offences under Section 20(B) and 29 of NDPS Act. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 17.03.2026, the police were conducting vehicle checking near Village Latori. During the checking, a vehicle coming from Ambikapur was seen stopping about 50 meters before the checking point, and its occupants allegedly attempted to flee upon noticing the police. The vehicle was intercepted and the persons found therein were identified as Lalit Yadav (driver), Jeevdhan Paikara, and Surendra Kumar Lashkar. During investigation, the memorandum statement of co-accused Surendra Kumar Lashkar was recorded, wherein he alleged that Mahesh Yadav and the present Applicant had attempted to escape from the vehicle after seeing the police. On the basis of the said memorandum statement, the present Applicant was implicated in the case. Upon search, a total of 8.990 kg of contraband Ganja was seized, of which 4.540 kg was recovered from Surendra Kumar Lashkar and 4.450 kg from Jeevdhan Paikara. No contraband was recovered from the possession of the present Applicant. Based on the above 3 allegations, the present offences have been registered against the present Applicant. Hence this application. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and is behind the bars since since 17.03.2026. He further submits that no recovery of any contraband was made from the possession of the present Applicant. The entire quantity of 8.990 kg of Ganja was allegedly recovered from the co-accused persons and no incriminating article has been seized from the Applicant. He lastly submits that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application but fairly submits that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the present Applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the pre-trial detention, the fact that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time for its conclusion, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered 4 opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant- Parmeshwar Dewangan involved in Crime No. 81/2026 registered at Police Station – Outpost Latori, P.S Jainagar, District Surajpur (C.G.), for the offences under Section 20(B) and 29 of NDPS Act 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 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 5 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya