1 2026:CGHC:27323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5856 of 2026 Raj Chandrakar S/o Suryaprakash Chandrakar Aged About 26 Years R/o Rawan Bhata, Ward No. 14, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, Tehsil Mandir Hasaud, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.367/2025, registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 21(b), 22(b), 21(c) and 22(c) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2026 passed in MCRC No. 742/2026. 3. As per the prosecution case, acting on secret information, a raid was PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.03 16:16:21 +0530 2 conducted during which 16 strips of Spas-Trascen-Plus capsules (each strip containing 8 capsules) were recovered from the possession of the co-accused, namely Mukesh Yadav. Upon due interrogation, the co-accused disclosed that he had purchased the said capsules from the present applicant. Thereafter, a raid was conducted at the premises of the present applicant, from whose possession 88 strips of Spas-Trascen- Plus capsules (each strip containing 8 capsules) were recovered. The capsules contain Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride, and Acetaminophen. As per the impugned order, the total quantity of the narcotic drug involved is 2,71,040 mg (271 grams and 40 milligrams). Accordingly, the FIR came to be registered. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits and that the present application is the second bail application. Learned counsel further submits that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and that he has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused. So far as the status of the trial is concerned, out of 23 prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined till date, and both of them have turned hostile. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 29.08.2025. Learned counsel also submits that one of the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9665/2025. As the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 3 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed. He further submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2026 passed in MCRC No. 742/2026 on the ground that the quantity allegedly recovered from the present applicant was much above the commercial quantity, whereas, in the case of the other co-accused persons who have been granted bail by this Court, the quantity recovered from them was below the commercial quantity. He, therefore, submits that there is no change in the circumstances since the rejection of the first bail application, and accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2026 passed in MCRC No. 742/2026 on the ground that the quantity allegedly recovered from the present applicant was much above the commercial quantity, whereas, in the case of the other co-accused persons who have been granted bail by this Court, the quantity recovered from them was below the commercial quantity, further there is no change in the circumstances since the rejection of the first bail application, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Raj Chandrakar involved in Crime No.367/2025, registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections Sections 21(b), 22(b), 21(c) and 22(c) of Narcotics Drugs 4 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 Preeti