CGHC010240482026 2026:CGHC:27692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5937 of 2026 Md Sharifullah Khan S/o Late Kalamullah Khan Aged About 27 Years R/o Aryan Marg Natraj Tailor Gali, Mominpura, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S H O) Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ganesh Gupta, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First 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. 551/2025, registered at Police Station - Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that during the investigation of Crime No. 531/2025 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, it was revealed VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.08 12:04:29 +0530 that the applicant had allegedly stolen a brass elephant statue from Kothighar, Ambikapur, and sold it as scrap. It is the case of the prosecution that the sale proceeds were utilized by the applicant for purchasing narcotic injections from Daltonganj, Jharkhand. Acting on the information collected during the investigation, the police recovered a commercial quantity of narcotic injections, including Buprenorphine Injection I.P. (2 ml) and Pheniramine Maleate (Avil) Injection (10 ml), allegedly connected with the applicant. Consequently, Crime No. 551/2025 was registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 21(C) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the matter was taken up for investigation. 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 co-accused, Imran Malik, has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.05.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 6143/2026, and the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing. It is further submitted that the applicant belongs to a respectable family, has been in judicial custody since 08.08.2025 for more than 300 days, and the trial is likely to take considerable time as, out of 12 prosecution witnesses, only 7 have been examined so far, and the witnesses examined have not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel further submits that the present FIR was registered while the applicant was already in police custody in connection with another case, thereby casting doubt on the genuineness of the alleged recovery and the prosecution story. It is also 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. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that although the co-accused, Imran Malik, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.05.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 6143/2026, the said order does not entitle the present applicant to claim parity, as the facts of the two cases are distinguishable. Learned State Counsel submits that no recovery was made from the co-accused, whereas a commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. Therefore, considering the recovery made from the applicant and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail and the present application deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the investigation, and the case diary, this Court finds that a commercial quantity of contraband is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. Although the co-accused, Imran Malik, has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no recovery was effected from the said co-accused, whereas the role attributed to the present applicant is distinguishable in view of the alleged recovery made from him. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused. At this stage, in view of the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the present bail application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Md Sharifullah Khan, involved in Crime No. 551/2025, registered at Police Station - Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav