1 2026:CGHC:26583 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5732 of 2026 Chhotu Jagi @ Sameer Vaishnav S/o Santosh Vaishnav Aged About 18 Years R/o Naveen Bazar Ward No.26, Kawardha Police Station Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer Police Station - Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. The default pointed out by the Registry of this Court is waived off. 2. 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. 258/2023 registered at Police Station – Kawardha District- Kabirdham, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, it is alleged that Police Station Kawardha registered Crime No. 258/2023 against the present RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 applicant and the co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is alleged that on 23.04.2023, the present applicant, along with co-accused Hemant, was found in conscious possession of 08 Rexogesic NRX injections containing a total of 16 ml of Buprenorphine, 51 Relam NRX tablets containing Alprazolam, and Avil injections containing a total of 480 ml of Pheniramine Maleate, which were allegedly recovered from their possession in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. Following the alleged seizure, the applicant and the co-accused were arrested on the same day in connection with the aforesaid crime. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the present application has been preferred seeking grant of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is contended that the alleged seizure suffers from serious procedural irregularities and mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, particularly Sections 50, 52 and 57, have not been duly complied with, thereby vitiating the investigation. It is further submitted that the memorandum of the accused persons was not recorded at the time of seizure and, as per the information available to the applicant, the investigation was conducted by an officer not duly authorized under law, which also renders the prosecution case doubtful. He further submits that the applicant has 3 remained in judicial custody since 23.04.2023, i.e., for more than three years, and despite such prolonged incarceration, only eight prosecution witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, resulting in infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the co-accused, Hemant Thakur, has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha, and the applicant is similarly situated and is, therefore, entitled to bail on the ground of parity. He submits that the applicant was only about 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident, has no criminal antecedents except the present case and one subsequently registered case, and his continued incarceration would seriously prejudice his future prospects. It is further submitted that at the initial stage of the proceedings, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had granted bail to the applicant upon observing that the alleged contraband was below small quantity, though the said order was subsequently cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that the subsequent prolonged incarceration, slow progress of the trial and other supervening circumstances constitute fresh grounds for grant of bail. It is lastly submitted that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is no longer required for custodial interrogation, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie establishes his conscious possession of the contraband. He further submits that the applicant has as many as 12 previous criminal antecedents under the IPC, which have not been explained by him in the present application. The applicant’s criminal history reflects his continuous involvement in criminal activities and creates a reasonable apprehension that, if released on bail, he is likely to indulge in similar offences or misuse the liberty granted to him. As such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the quantity and nature of the contraband allegedly recovered, the material available on record, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the case diary, though learned counsel for the applicant has raised certain objections regarding the manner of investigation, alleged non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, prolonged incarceration and delay in conclusion of the trial, such contentions are matters to be examined during the course of trial and do not, at this stage, satisfy the twin 5 conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This Court also finds substance in the objection raised by the learned State counsel, who has specifically pointed out that the applicant has 12 previous criminal antecedents under the Indian Penal Code, which have not been explained in the present bail application. The applicant’s unexplained criminal history disentitles him from the discretionary relief of bail and raises a reasonable apprehension of his indulging in similar activities if released. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the applicant’s unexplained criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Chhotu Jagi @ Sameer Vaishnav, involved in Crime No. 258/2023 registered at Police Station – Kawardha District- Kabirdham, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. 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 Rahul Dewangan