1 CGHC010170622026 2026:CGHC:28566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3956 of 2026 S. Sanmukeshwar S/ O S. Ramesh Dora Aged About 18 Years Navrangpur, Patan Sai Thana Navrangpur Odisha, District Navrangpur Odisha ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO., P. S. Kotwali Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. .. Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Parht Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. 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 grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 159/2026 registered at Police Station- Kotwali Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of secret KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 information, the police apprehended co-accused Sameer Baghel, from whose possession 27 strips of Pyeevon Spas Plus capsules containing Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride and Acetaminophen were recovered. During investigation, the memorandum statement of the co-accused was recorded, wherein he disclosed that the aforesaid contraband capsules had been purchased from the shop of the present applicant. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the co-accused, the police recovered 02 strips of Pyeevon Spas Plus capsules, each containing 08 capsules, from the possession of the present applicant. As per the seizure memo, the recovered capsules contained Dicyclomine Hydrochloride I.P., Tramadol Hydrochloride I.P. and Acetaminophen I.P., the total weight of the seized capsules being 8.96 grams. The report of the Drug Inspector reveals that the seized capsules contained Tramadol Hydrochloride, which is a psychotropic substance notified under the NDPS Act. As per the notification, the small quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride is 5 grams and the commercial quantity is 250 grams. On the basis of the quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride found in the seized capsules, the present case has been registered against the applicant under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and no offence, as alleged, has been committed by him. He further submits that the recovery from the present applicant is a separate seizure of 3 only 02 strips containing 16 capsules, and the quantity allegedly recovered from the applicant falls below the commercial quantity, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is suffering from paralysis affecting the left side of his face and is undergoing continuous medical treatment. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 14.04.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed, no further custodial interrogation is required and the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. The memorandum statement of the co-accused specifically discloses that the contraband seized from him had been purchased from the present applicant and pursuant thereto, 02 strips of Pyeevon Spas Plus capsules were also recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that though the quantity recovered from the present applicant is less than the commercial quantity, the recovery made from the co-accused as well as the memorandum statement prima facie indicate the involvement of the applicant in the illegal sale of narcotic capsules. He further submits that the applicant is a resident of the State of Odisha and therefore, there is no official information available regarding his previous criminal antecedents, however, learned 4 counsel for the applicant has written in the bail application of para 4(A) that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Hence, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the allegations, the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 14.04.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the fact that the recovery from the present applicant is a separate recovery of 02 strips containing 16 capsules and the quantity of the psychotropic substance allegedly recovered from the applicant is less than the commercial quantity and further considering that the applicant is stated to be suffering from paralysis affecting the left side of his face and is undergoing medical treatment and though the applicant is a resident of the State of Odisha and there is no official verification available regarding his previous criminal antecedents but the learned counsel for the applicant has categorically written in the bail application of para 4(A) that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – S. Sanmukeshwar, involved in Crime No. 159/2026 registered at Police Station- Kotwali Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the 5 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 6 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal