Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25862 (CHH)

MO. MIRAJ v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/5009/2026 · 2026-07-08

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010215772026 2026:CGHC:28637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5009 of 2026 1 - Mo. Miraj S/o Rahmat Ali Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. -13, Devanpada, Titlagarh, Police Station Titlagarh, District Balangir (Odisa) 2 - Rohi Pond S/o Nilanchal Pond, Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. -07, Jagannathpada, Titlagarh, Police Station Titlagarh, District Balangir (Odisa) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Komakhan District Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Devesh G.Kela, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasne, Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.52/2026 registered at Police Station Komakhan Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.07.10 18:46:44 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.04.2026 Sub Inspector of Komakhan Police Station Shri Sikandar Bhoi received information that in a white colour Ashok Leland Truck CG 04 QS 4806 four persons are coming from Odissa to Chhattisgarh on this information they were standing on the place of incident after some time 4 persons came on the said vehicle from Khariyar Road and after stopping the vehicle, when the name of driver was asked, he told his name as Mo. Miraj and the other person who was sitting on the cabin of truck told his name as Rohit Pond and the juvenile also told their name. In search total 47.300 KG Ganja was seized from the joint possession of all the persons and the applicants were arrested. Hence this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and the contraband Ganja was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicants. He further submits that that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. He further submits that from the joint possession of the applicant only 47.300 Kgs Ganja has been seized. He later submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedent and they are in jail since 19.04.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedent. She further submits that from the joint possession of the applicants 3 contraband article i.e. 47.300 Kgs of Ganja is seized, which is more than commercial Quantity therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that though the contraband article, which has been recovered from the joint possession of the applicants i.e. 47.300 Kgs of Ganja, which is more than the commercial quantity and applicants have failed to give explanation for the said recovery, further it cannot be a case of false implication, the trial is in progress. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No.1- Mo. Miraj, and applicant No.2 - Rohit Pond, involved in Crime No.52/2026 registered at Police Station Komakhan Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaishali