1 2026:CGHC:27247 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5855 of 2026 Mahesh Kumar Bareth S/o Pusau Ram Bareth, Aged About 34 Years (Now Aged About -35years), R/o Village-Pendri, Police Station And Tahsil-Janjgir, District -Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Souorabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/07/2026 1. This is the Third bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 301/2025 registered at Police Station Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(C), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The earlier first bail and second bail application of the applicant KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 being MCRC No. 3826 of 2025, 9682/2025 were rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2025 and 02.12.2025 on merits. Hence, this third bail application. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.04.2025, the Station House Inspector of Police Station Janjgir received secret information that Mahesh Bareth, a resident of Village Pendri, was traveling on his Platina motorcycle (CG 11 MB 3563) carrying intoxicating tablets towards Dhurkot. Acting on this information, the police reached the indicated location, conducted a search, and recovered 912 intoxicating tablets kept inside a red carry-bag attached to the motorcycle handle. Finding sufficient evidence, the police arrested Mahesh Bareth under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. Based on his statement, co-accused Mahendra was also arrested, and further investigation is ongoing. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier first bail and second bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 3826/2025, 9682/2025 were rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2025 and 02.12.2025 on merits. It is further submitted that the present third bail application has been filed on the basis of a subsequent change in circumstances that out of the total 15 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, the statements of 04 witnesses have already been recorded before the trial Court. It is contended that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 16.04.2025 and has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted 3 that the trial is progressing at a slow pace and is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the earlier bail applications of the applicant were rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 07.06.2025 and 02.12.2025 and there is no substantial change in the circumstances warranting reconsideration of the applicant's case. It is submitted that merely because some prosecution witnesses have been examined during the course of trial, turned hostile cannot be treated as a fresh ground for grant of bail, particularly when the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It is further submitted that no new or cogent ground has been raised by the applicant in the present third bail application so as to take a view different from that taken earlier by this Court. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the absence of any significant change in circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the present application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that no such subsequent change in circumstances has occurred after rejection of the applicant's earlier first and second bail 4 applications on merits so as to justify reconsideration of the matter. Merely because out of 15 prosecution witnesses, 04 witnesses have been examined during trial who have turned hostile, the same cannot be construed as a substantial change in circumstances warranting grant of bail. No other good ground of significance has been raised by learned counsel for the applicant. Therefore, this Court finds no good ground to interfere at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant – Mahesh Kumar Bareth, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 301/2025 registered at Police Station Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 21(C), 29 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/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal