1 CGHC010177472026 2026:CGHC:28077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4132 of 2026 Nitin Rajurkar S/o- Ganesh Rajurkar Aged About 24 Years R/o- Rajendra Nagar, Pathakheda, PS- Saarni, District- Baitul, Madhya Pradesh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In-Charge of Police Station- Komakhan, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from CIS) For Applicant : Shri Mohit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mrs. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. This is the first application for grant of regular bail filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant is in jail since 30.01.2026 in connection with Crime No.16/2026 registered at Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant had earlier preferred a bail application before the learned ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.07 18:49:49 +0530 2 Special Judge (NDPS), Mahasamund in Bail Application No.339/2026, which came to be rejected by order dated 10.04.2026. Hence, the present first bail application before this Court. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.01.2026, the Assistant Sub-Inspector Sikandar Bhai Hamare of Police Station Komakhan, along with the police staff, was engaged in vehicle checking in front of the police station. During the checking, a mukhbir informed the police that two persons riding a blue scooter bearing registration No. CG-04- LG-5607 were coming from Odisha towards Chhattisgarh carrying illegal contraband (ganja). Acting upon the said information, the police team reached the indicated spot and laid a blockade. After some time, the scooter matching the description was intercepted. On enquiry, the rider disclosed his name as Rupesh Sahu, while the pillion rider disclosed his name as Nitin Rajputkar. They allegedly stated that they were transporting ganja from Odisha for sale in Madhya Pradesh. A search of the scooter led to the recovery of 10 kilograms of ganja, packed in a plastic bag and concealed in the dickey beneath the seat. The seized contraband was valued at approximately ₹5,00,000/- and was allegedly recovered from the joint possession of both the accused. Thereafter, the accused persons were arrested in accordance with law, and Crime No. 16/2026 was registered at Police Station Komakhan for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act against Rupesh Sahu and Nitin Rajputkar. During investigation, the role of other co-accused/persons involved in the transportation and supply of the contraband was also looked into. 3 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 the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged and has been roped in on the basis of a false and fabricated prosecution story. It is further submitted that no independent and reliable witness has supported the prosecution case. The alleged contraband was not recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the present applicant and there is no material on record to establish that the applicant was involved in the sale, transportation or possession of the alleged contraband so as to attract the provisions of Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. It is also argued that the applicant has been in jail since 30.01.2026 and the trial is likely to consume considerable time and continued incarceration of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment, it is therefore prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail. She would next submit that the applicant has two previous antecedents to his credit for the offenes punishable under the provisions of the IPC/BNS. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the allegation against the applicant is of transportation of 10 kilograms of ganja, which is below the notified commercial quantity. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed; therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. It is true that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents; however, both the antecedents pertain to offences under the IPC/BNS and none relates to the NDPS Act. Thus, the applicant cannot be termed as a habitual offender under the NDPS Act merely on the basis of such antecedents. Also considering the fact that the applicant has remained in jail since 30.01.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has succeeded in making out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let applicant, Nitin Rajurkar, involved in Crime No.16/2026 registered at Police Station Komakhan, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20B of the NDPS Act be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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 5 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (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 313 Cr.P.C. 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 within one week from today. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Ashu