1 2026:CGHC:26301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5378 of 2026 1 - Ajay Arya S/o Chandramohan Arya Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 8 Bidishrami, Shatabdipuram, P.S. Maharajpura, District- Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) 2 - Pawan Kumar Mahor S/o Gangadhar Mahor Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 264, Girdsapra Aashram, P.S. Maharajpura, District- Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) .. Applicant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Ms. Mahi Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 275/2025 registered at Police Station – Fingeshwar, District – Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 13.09.2025, the Sub-Inspector posted at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, received information from a reliable source that certain individuals travelling in a white car were carrying and transporting Ganja (Cannabis) from Odisha to Maharashtra and would pass through Fingeshwar. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector, after immediately informing his superior officers, started checking vehicles passing through the main road. Acting upon the said information, he intercepted a white Honda City bearing registration No. MH-04-HJ-1555 and enquired about the names and addresses of the persons travelling in the vehicle, who disclosed their names as Feroz Istari (resident of Bhandara, Maharashtra), Ajay Arya (resident of Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh) and Pawan Kumar Mahor (resident of Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh). Thereafter, all the three individuals were searched, during which sealed packets were recovered from the car. Upon examination, the packets were found to contain Ganja (Cannabis) weighing 8.690 kg, 10.135 kg and 8.115 kg respectively, aggregating to 26.930 kg, valued at approximately Rs.2,70,000/-. Accordingly, an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was registered against all the accused persons. Investigation was thereafter carried out and, upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the 3 present case. It is contended that no contraband substance was recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicants and that the mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have not been duly complied with by the investigating agency. It is further submitted that the applicants were merely passengers travelling in the vehicle in question and were not aware of the alleged transportation of the contraband substance. She further submits that the police have deliberately shown the seizure to be a joint seizure only to bring the quantity of the contraband within the ambit of commercial quantity and thereby aggravate the severity of the offence. It is also contended that the applicants have not committed any act contrary to law and have been falsely implicated in the matter. Attention of this Court is further invited to the fact that the applicants are in custody since 13.09.2025, investigation has already been completed and charge- sheet has been filed. It is also submitted that out of 14 prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, only two witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicants, who have already remained in custody for more than seven months, be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants were apprehended while travelling in the vehicle from which a total quantity of 26.930 kilograms of Ganja (Cannabis), which is much above the commercial quantity, was recovered. It is 4 further submitted that the contraband was recovered from the joint possession of all the occupants of the vehicle and, therefore, the embargo contained under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is attracted. He further contends that the bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the quantity of contraband seized, no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicants and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and a total quantity of 26.930 kgs of Ganja (Cannabis), which is much above the commercial quantity, has been recovered from the joint possession of the applicants and further considering the fact that the bail application of the co- accused namely Shivshankar Ramaji has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 3276 of 2026 vide order dated 19.06.2026, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, it cannot be said to be a case of false implication. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicants on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants – Ajay Arya and Pawan Kumar Mahor filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 5 involved in Crime No. 275/2025 registered at Police Station – Fingeshwar, District – Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(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. 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