1 CGHC010247062026 2026:CGHC:27693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5934 of 2026 Shatruhan Sahu @ Nanu Sahu S/o Late Dukhit Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Bhim Nagar Ward No. 5, Near Deepak Kirana Stores Sanjay Nagar Supela, P.S. Supela Bhilai, District Durg C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ghumka District Rajnandgaon C.G. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajesh Jain and Ms. Kiran Jain, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 152/2024, registered at Police Station : Ghumka District Rajnandgaon (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(II)(C) & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected on VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.07 11:12:35 +0530 2 merits by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9770 of 2025. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on dated 24-10-2024 on the basis of information of informer, investigation officer seized 65.565 kg of Ganja, which was kept in 64 packets from the vehicle Tata DI 207 bearing registration No. C.G.04 JB 1697 from possession of Accused Bedabar. Patro and Dhanraj Patel. That during investigation Memorandum of the Bedabar Patro and Dhanraj Patel was recorded in which he stated that Anil Soni had brought Ganja and given to him for delivery to Akash Yadav at Jabalpur. That the applicant is owner of the vehicle from the contraband have been seized. That Further investigation carryout and final report submits before the court of law. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the ground that he is the registered owner of the vehicle from which the alleged contraband ganja was seized, though no contraband has been recovered from his conscious possession. It is contended that the investigation has been completed and the final report/charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is neither named in the FIR nor does his name figure in the memorandum statement of any of the co-accused. It is also argued that there has been non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act, as there is no material to show that the seized contraband was sealed with the seal of the Station House Officer before being deposited in the malkhana. It is further submitted that the vehicle was being driven by the driver at the relevant time and 3 the applicant had no knowledge of the alleged transportation of contraband in the vehicle. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is not a habitual offender, has remained in judicial custody since 14.04.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is also contended that the co-accused, Mukesh Tiwari @ Bablu Tiwari, has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cri.) No. 6184/2026 and, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that the applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits, and further considering that the applicant has been implicated primarily on the ground that he is the registered owner of the vehicle from which the alleged contraband ganja was seized, though no contraband has been recovered from his conscious possession, the charge-sheet has 4 already been filed, only 13 out of 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, and the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 14.04.2025, coupled with the fact that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Let the Second Bail of the applicant – Shatruhan Sahu @ Nanu Sahu, involved in Crime No.152/2024, registered at Police Station: Ghumka District Rajnandgaon (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(II)(C) & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible 5 within a period of four months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 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 Vaibhav