Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25542 (CHH)

SHEIKH BABU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/6034/2026 · 2026-07-07

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010247382026 2026:CGHC:28198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6034 of 2026 Sheikh Babu S/o Shekh Kamaruddin Aged About 45 Years R/o Mansuri Mohalla, Ward No. 13, Nagaud P.S. Nagaud, District : Satna, Madhya Pradesh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Thana In-Charge, P.S. City Kotwali, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.18/2025, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, District : Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.01.2025, the Police Station, City Kotwali, received secret information and apprehended the co-accused, namely Mahender Singh. During the course of investigation, his memorandum statement was recorded, in which he stated that the present applicant had come from Satna and had stayed in a lodge for the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.09 12:31:34 +0530 2 purpose of purchasing contraband articles. On the basis of the said information and other material collected during the investigation, the complainant lodged the FIR at the concerned Police Station. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that no specific allegation made against the present applicant. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. It is further submitted the applicant is in jail since 11.01.2025. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has five previous criminal antecedents, out of which three cases pertain to offences under the NDPS Act for the years 2020 and 2023, while the remaining two cases relate to offences under the IPC for the years 2006 and 2011 which shows that he is a habitual offender. In view of the applicant's criminal antecedents, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, as well as the fact that the applicant has three previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, two of which pertain to the year 2020 and one to the year 2023, all of which are pending, this Court is of the view that the applicant appears to be a habitual offender and it cannot be said to be a case of false implication and also in light of the judgment rendered by the 3 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 applicant – Sheikh Babu involved in Crime No.18/2025, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, District : Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti