1 2026:CGHC:26571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5624 of 2026 Mohd. Shamshad S/o Mohd Tufani Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Semariya Post- Police Station Semariya Near To Police Station Near To Gareeb - Nawaz Kirana Shop District- Chatra , Jharkhand ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Tikrapara District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Gupta, Advocate through V.C. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30/06/2026 1. This is the First bail application filed 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. 181/2025 registered at Police Station- Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that as reflected from the FIR, on 06.03.2025, the Police received secret information from an informant regarding the illegal possession and transportation of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 contraband. Acting upon the said information, the Police apprehended the present applicant along with another co-accused near Naya Bus Stand, Bhatagaon, Raipur, while they were travelling on a motorcycle. Upon search, the Police allegedly recovered and seized 105 bottles of Onerex-TM cough syrup, each containing 100 ml and comprising Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride, from their conscious possession. As the accused persons failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding the possession of the aforesaid contraband, Crime No. 181/2025 was registered against them for the offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, both the accused persons were arrested on 06.03.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against both the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 06.03.2025, the investigation has already been completed, charge- sheet has been filed and, therefore, no further custodial interrogation is required. It is contended that the trial is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence and is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. He further submits that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 42, 50 and 52A, have not been complied with in their true letter and spirit, thereby vitiating the entire search and seizure proceedings. It is also argued 3 that the alleged recovery is doubtful and suffers from material contradictions and procedural irregularities, no independent witnesses were associated with the seizure proceedings and the prosecution has failed to establish the conscious possession of the contraband by the applicant. It is further contended that the prosecution has not ascertained the actual Codeine content of the seized cough syrup and, therefore, the applicability of commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that a total of 105 bottles of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride were seized from the conscious possession of the applicant and the co- accused and the quantity of the contraband so seized is above the commercial quantity, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the regular bail application preferred by the co-accused, namely, Vasim Jafar, has already been dismissed by this Court in MCRC No. 4080 of 2025 vide order dated 27.05.2025. Since the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing as that of the aforesaid co-accused, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present bail application deserves to be dismissed. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegations, the fact that the quantity of the contraband allegedly seized from the joint possession of the applicant along with co-accused, is above the commercial quantity and further considering that the bail application of the co-accused, namely, Vasim Jafar, has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 4080 of 2025 vide order dated 27.05.2025 and the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing as that of the said co-accused, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Mohd. Shamshad, involved in Crime No. 181/2025 registered at Police Station- Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 21(C) 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 for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal