1 CGHC010205472026 2026:CGHC:29034 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5108 of 2026 Nepal Singh Rajput S/o Sher Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 30, Gwal Tolil Narmadapuram Horangabad. Present Address Narmada Bihar Udaypura, District Raysen (Madhya Pradesh). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Singhoda District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 104/2021 registered at Police Station - Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 20(B)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.11.2021, police officials deployed at the inter-state check post on NH-53 near Village Rehatikhol received secret information regarding a suspicious silver-coloured Bolero ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.13 11:47:23 +0530 2 vehicle approaching from the Odisha side. When the police attempted to stop the vehicle, the driver fled, whereupon the police team chased the vehicle. Near Village Khamharpali, the driver abandoned the vehicle and escaped from the spot. Thereafter, in the presence of independent witnesses, the police searched the Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-05-BA-0389 and allegedly recovered three plastic sacks containing 100 packets of contraband Ganja weighing 99.800 kilograms. The contraband was seized, and a case was registered as Crime No. 104/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, against an unknown person. It is further alleged that on 01.08.2025, the Applicant and the co- accused were arrested by the Police Station Singhora on the basis of their memorandum statements. Thereafter, the applicant was charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She submits that the investigating agency failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, as no search warrant or prior authorization was obtained from the competent superior authority. She further submits that the co-accused, namely, Pukhraj Singh Rajput, has already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1203 of 2026 vide order dated 20.02.2026 on the ground that, although charges had been framed, the recording of prosecution evidence had not commenced and no recovery was made from the said co-accused. She submits that no recovery has been made from the possession of the present applicant either, and, therefore, her case stands on the same footing as that of the said co-accused. It is further submitted that there are 21 prosecution 3 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, and till date, none of them has been examined before the trial Court. She also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 01.08.2025. Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, she prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the IPC. However, he could not dispute the fact that an identically situated co-accused has already been granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 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, particularly the fact that no recovery has been made from the possession of the present applicant, his name has surfaced during the course of investigation, and an identically situated co-accused, namely, Pukhraj Singh Rajput, has already been granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the principle of parity is attracted in the present case. Moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and present applicant has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, he is in jail since 01.08.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant - Nepal Singh Rajput, involved in Crime No. 104/2021 registered at Police Station - Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 20(B)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and 4 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing 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 his 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 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 5 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. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek