1 2026:CGHC:26920 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2617 of 2026 Saurabh S/o Shri Vinod Gupta Aged About 27 Years R/o Mishra Bagh Musaheb Ganj Lucknow, (U. P.)226003 ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station - Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01/07/2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.04/2025 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b) and 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.07.02 14:58:42 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, the investigating officer received classified information whereafter while conducting raid, he intercepted a vehicle being driven by the prime accused and seized 149.400 kgs of Ganja from the prime accused and in pursuance of investigation, his memorandum was recorded. In his memorandum the prime accused had named 3 persons including the present applicant whereafter, the applicant was arrested on 16.05.2025 and produced before the learned trial court which remanded him to judicial custody. Hence this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application of the applicant and the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 20/08/2025 vide MCRC No.6574/2025. It is argued that one of the co-accused Vinod Singh whose bail has already been rejected by this court in MCRC No.8161/2025 on 14/10/2025 had preferred SLP before the Apex Court and the same has been allowed on 12/01/2026. So far as the status of the trial is concerned, it is stated that out of 16 prosecution witnesses none have been examined as it reflects from the order sheet. She would submit that the charge sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 16/05/2025 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application but do not dispute the fact that one of the co-accused has been granted bail by the Apex Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 20/08/2025 vide MCRC No.6574/2025, further the fact that one of the co-accused Vinod Singh whose bail has already been rejected by this court in MCRC No.8161/2025 on 14/10/2025 had preferred SLP before the Apex Court and the same has been allowed on 12/01/2026, further the fact that out of 16 prosecution witnesses none have been examined, period of detention of the applicant since 16/05/2025 and also considering the fact that trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant- Saurabh, involved in Crime No.04/2025 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b) and 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 4 cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri