1 2026:CGHC:26303 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5247 of 2026 Ajay Sahu S/o Shankar Lal Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Hasda, Magarlod, Police Station Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S H O, Police Station Fingeshwar Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : None For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. None appears nor any representation made on behalf of the applicant to press this bail application when the case is called out. Hence, the Court proceeds to consider and hear the bail application of the applicant with the assistance of State counsel. 2. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 12/2026 registered at Police Station Fingeshwar District – Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 3. The earlier first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2553/2026 was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2026 on the ground of criminal antecedent. Hence, this Second bail application. 4. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 14.01.2026, the applicant was arrested along with co-accused persons while travelling in a Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-DM-5000. The police allegedly recovered 19.423 kg of ganja (cannabis) from the trunk of the vehicle, which is stated to have been in the joint possession of the accused persons. Two juveniles, aged 13 and 15 years, were also present in the vehicle. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested in the aforesaid crime and was produced before the learned Court on 14.01.2026, from where he was remanded to judicial custody and is presently lodged in District Jail, Raipur. 5. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the earlier first bail application preferred by the present applicant, being MCRC No. 2553/2026, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026, primarily on the ground of the applicant's criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the said criminal antecedent still subsists and the concerned case is pending consideration before the competent Court. Merely because the applicant has furnished an explanation regarding the said antecedent in Part-D of the present bail application, the same cannot be construed as a material change in 3 circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. He further submits that the applicant is a habitual offender and no substantial change in circumstances has occurred after rejection of the earlier bail application so as to entertain the present second bail application. It is contended that the fact that the independent seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile does not, by itself, demolish the prosecution case, as the evidentiary value of the testimony of official witnesses is yet to be tested during trial. The prosecution case cannot be said to have been seriously weakened at this stage. It is also submitted that the co-accused, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2026, stands on a different footing and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to claim parity. Accordingly, considering the gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedent of the applicant, the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available on record and on perusal of the grounds raised in the present second bail application, this Court finds that the earlier first bail application of the applicant bearing MCRC No. 2553/2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026, primarily on account of the applicant's criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act. The grounds urged in the present second bail application are that the independent seizure witnesses 4 have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile and that the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court. However, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial change in circumstances has occurred after rejection of the earlier bail application so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer for bail. Merely because the independent seizure witnesses have turned hostile, the prosecution case cannot be said to have been demolished at this stage, as the evidentiary value of the testimony of the official witnesses is yet to be tested during trial. Further, the quantity of contraband allegedly seized, i.e., 19.423 kg of ganja, is a substantial quantity falling just short of the commercial quantity. Moreover, one criminal case under the NDPS Act is still pending against the applicant, which, though explained in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the present bail application, nevertheless remains a relevant consideration. Hence, the present applicant is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Ajay Sahu, involved in Crime No. 12/2026 registered at Police Station Fingeshwar District – Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under 5 Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 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 Kunal