1 2026:CGHC:27200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5810 of 2026 Kamesh Yadav S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Serikhedi, P.S. - Mandir Hasoud, District (Revenue And Civil) - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2026 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. 160/2026 registered at Police Station – Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.03.2026, while on routine patrolling, the police personnel of Police Station Mandir Hasoud received secret information that a person was illegally RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 possessing a narcotic substance in the dickey of a blue-coloured scooty parked behind the Hanuman Temple near Serikhedi Bridge. The said information was duly communicated to the Station House Officer, recorded in the General Diary, and thereafter independent witnesses, namely Bhojraj Yadav and Mukesh Yadav, were summoned, following which an information panchnama was prepared. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a search and recovered 1.613 kg of ganja from the conscious possession of co-accused Badal Netam, which was seized in accordance with law. During investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Badal Netam, it was alleged that the seized contraband had been supplied to him by the present applicant for the purpose of sale. On the basis of the said memorandum statement and the material collected during investigation, the present applicant was arraigned as an accused in the case, and the charge-sheet was filed showing him as absconding. Subsequently, the present applicant surrendered before the learned Trial Court and preferred an application for grant of regular bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no contraband has been recovered or seized from the conscious possession of the applicant and the entire seizure of 1.613 kg of ganja was effected from the possession of co-accused Badal Netam, who has already been enlarged on bail by the learned 3 Trial Court, and a copy of the said bail order has been filed as Annexure A/3. It is further submitted that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which, by itself, has no substantive evidentiary value and is not sufficient to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. Except for the said memorandum statement, there is no independent material or cogent evidence collected during investigation to prima facie establish the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant voluntarily surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 16.06.2026 and has been in judicial custody thereafter. With regard to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, it is submitted that though three previous cases are reflected against him, all of them have already been concluded. In Crime No. 345/2023 registered at Police Station Mandir Hasoud under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, the case was disposed of on 07.12.2024 upon payment of a fine of Rs. 8,000/-, after the applicant had remained in custody for about one month and twenty-six days, and the sentence already undergone was treated as sufficient. In Crime No. 470/2021 registered at the same police station under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the applicant was acquitted by judgment dated 22.02.2025. Further, in Crime No. 459/2025 registered under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, the case was disposed of on 13.12.2025 upon payment of a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Thus, none of the previous cases are pending against the applicant, and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular 4 bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is contended that during the course of investigation, the co-accused Badal Netam specifically disclosed in his memorandum statement that the seized contraband had been supplied by the present applicant for the purpose of illegal sale, and the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the applicant remained absconding during investigation and, therefore, the charge-sheet was filed against him as an absconding accused, whereafter he surrendered before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that the applicant is a habitual offender having criminal antecedents, as he has previously been involved in three criminal cases, including one under the NDPS Act, one under the Arms Act and another under the Excise Act. Merely because the said cases have been disposed of or one of them has resulted in acquittal does not wipe out his criminal antecedents or the recurring nature of his involvement in criminal activities. Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations, the criminal antecedents of the applicant, and the likelihood of his indulging in similar offences if released on bail, it is prayed that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the quantity of contraband involved, the material collected during investigation, particularly the memorandum statement of the co-accused implicating the present applicant as the supplier of the seized contraband, the fact that the applicant remained absconding during investigation and the charge-sheet was filed against him as an absconder, and further taking into consideration his criminal antecedents, though the three previous criminal cases registered against the applicant have been disposed of and he has been acquitted in one case, it cannot be overlooked that he had earlier suffered conviction in a case under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and was also involved in an offence under the Excise Act, which was disposed of upon payment of fine. The antecedents of the applicant, viewed cumulatively, indicate that he is a habitual offender and his repeated involvement in offences of a similar nature cannot be ignored at this stage, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. 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. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Kamesh Yadav, involved in Crime No. 160/2026 registered at Police Station – Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 6 Substances Act, 1985, 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan