1 2026:CGHC:6566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1303 of 2026 Tasavur Ansari S/o Maqsood Ansari Aged About 22 Years R/o Kanakpur Maruliapara, Balrampur Ramanujaganj, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through O,cer-In-Charge of Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. This is the 6rst bail application 6led 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. 515/2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District – Sarguja (C.G.), for the o>ence punishable under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.09.2025, the police received information from an informer that a co-accused, namely KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Shubham Vishwas, was present on Digma Road, Village area, riding a Honda SP motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-30-F- 3359, and was in possession of a large quantity of narcotic injections for the purpose of sale and was waiting for customers. Acting on the said information, the police reached the spot and conducted a search. From a bag hanging on the handle of the motorcycle of the accused Shubham Vishwas, one paper box was recovered and seized, which contained 28 Rexogesic Buprenorphine Injections IP 2 ml (total quantity 56 ml) and 28 vials of Avil Pheniramine Maleate Injection IP 10 ml (total quantity 280 ml). When notice was given to the co-accused Shubham Vishwas regarding possession of the narcotic injections and he was asked to produce valid documents, he stated that he had obtained the said narcotic substances from another co-accused, namely Farooq Ansari. Further, co-accused Farooq Ansari, in his memorandum statement, stated that he had purchased the said injections from the present applicant/accused, Tasavur Ansari. Thereafter, an FIR bearing Crime No. 515/2025 was registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Sarguja (C.G.), for the o>ence punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No recovery of any alleged narcotic substance or incriminating material has been made from the possession of the present applicant, as the entire recovery was e>ected from co-accused Shubham Vishwas; 3 thus, the essential ingredient of conscious possession under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is absent against the applicant. The implication of the applicant is based solely on the memorandum statement of co- accused Farooq Ansari recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction or continued incarceration. It is further submitted that Pheniramine Maleate is not a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act but only a Schedule ‘H’ drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the quantity of Buprenorphine allegedly recovered is below commercial quantity. There is no material to show that the applicant was involved in the sale or transportation of any contraband. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been 6led. The applicant has been in custody since 22.12.2025, the trial is likely to take considerable time and continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment, therefore, applicant deserves to be enlarge on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there are clear and serious allegations against the present applicant. During investigation, narcotic injections were seized from co-accused Shubham Vishwas and the recovered contraband is of commercial quantity, therefore the strict provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply. It is submitted that co-accused Shubham Vishwas stated that he had obtained the injections through co- accused Farooq Ansari and Farooq Ansari, in his memorandum statement, named the present applicant as the person who supplied 4 the injections. This shows that the applicant is part of the illegal supply chain of narcotic substances. Considering the serious nature of the o>ence, involvement in supply of narcotics, and the bar of Section 37 NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that narcotic injections were seized from the possession of co-accused Shubham Vishwas and the quantity of contraband so recovered is above the commercial quantity, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The investigation further reveals that co-accused Shubham Vishwas disclosed that he had obtained the said narcotic injections from co-accused Farooq Ansari, who in turn, in his memorandum statement, stated that he had purchased the same from the present applicant. Thus, the material collected during investigation indicates a chain of illegal supply of narcotic substances, in which the present applicant appears to be the source. In view of the commercial quantity involved and the role attributed to the applicant in the supply chain, it cannot be said at this stage that he has been falsely implicated and he has failed to o>er any satisfactory explanation. Hence, this Court does not 6nd it to be a 6t case to release the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Tasavur Ansari, 6led under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., involved in Crime No. 515/2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District – 5 Sarguja (C.G.), for the o>ence punishable under Section 22(C) of the 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. O,ce is directed to send a certi6ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal