1 2026:CGHC:26570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5700 of 2026 Manish Markam Son Of Bahadur Markam Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Subhash Nagar Dewar Para, Police Station - Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Officers Of Police Station Telibandha District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 20/2026, registered at Police Station-Telibandha District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.01.2026, Police Station Telibandha received secret information from the informant KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 (Mukhbir) that two individuals were standing near Horizon Hospital on Devar Para Road, Raipur, in possession of a narcotic substance (Ganja) and were searching for customers to sell the same. Upon recording the said information in the Daily Diary (Roznamcha), the police summoned independent witnesses, namely Likesh Verma and Sanjay Nishad. Since the situation required immediate action and obtaining a warrant would have provided an opportunity for the suspects to escape, a Panchnama regarding non-obtainment of warrant was prepared. During the search, the police recovered 03 kg of Ganja from the possession of Duldul Markam and 03 kg of Ganja from the possession of Manish Markam. Thus, a total quantity of 06 kg of Ganja, valued at approximately Rs.60,000/-, was seized. The contraband was weighed on the spot using an electronic weighing scale by witness Yogesh Yadav. Thereafter, the seized Ganja was sealed with the brass seal bearing the inscription "TB RPR" and sample packets were prepared. The accused persons failed to produce any valid licence or permit for possessing the said contraband and were also unable to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding its possession. Consequently, they were arrested at 15:10 hours and 15:20 hours, respectively, on 15.01.2026 for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, and FIR bearing Crime No.20/2026 was registered against them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 3 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. He also submits that from the possession of the applicant intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs and from the joint possession of the applicant along with co-accused only 06 kg contraband article i.e. (Ganja) has been seized (each 3kg). It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has four criminal antecedents as has been explained through affidavit and he is in jail since 15.01.2026. He further submits that the co-accused namely Duldul Markam has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3263/2026 vide order dated 07.05.2026 and the case of the applicant stands on similar footing and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that though the charge-sheet has already been filed, yet 06 kgs of Ganja worth about Rs.60,000/- was seized from the joint possession of the present applicant and the co-accused persons, out of which 03 kgs each was recovered from their respective possession. It is further submitted that although the seized quantity is below the commercial quantity, the present applicant has criminal antecedents, including one offence registered under the NDPS Act in the year 2025. It is contended that though 4 the applicant has furnished an affidavit explaining four criminal cases, he has failed to disclose and explain the aforesaid NDPS case of the year 2025. It is further submitted that the parity sought by the applicant on the basis of the bail granted to the co-accused is misconceived, as the case of the co-accused stands on a different footing. The co-accused was enlarged on bail primarily on the ground that he had no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, whereas the present applicant is involved in another NDPS case and has not even furnished any explanation regarding the same. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to claim parity with the co- accused and, as such, his application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the fact that 06 kgs of Ganja valued at approximately Rs.60,000/- has been seized from the joint possession of the present applicant and the co-accused persons, out of which 03 kgs of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, though the charge-sheet has already been filed and the quantity involved is below the commercial quantity, it is pointed out that the present applicant has criminal antecedents, including one previous case registered under the NDPS Act in the year 2025. Further, although the applicant has filed an affidavit explaining four criminal cases, he has neither disclosed nor furnished any explanation with regard to the aforesaid NDPS case of the year 2025. So far as the claim of 5 parity with the co-accused is concerned, this Court finds that the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing, inasmuch as the co-accused was granted bail primarily on account of absence of any criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, whereas the present applicant is involved in another case under the NDPS Act. Thus, the applicant is not entitled to claim parity with the co-accused. Hence, he 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 – Manish Markam, involved in Crime No. 20/2026, registered at Police Station-Telibandha District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal