1 CGHC010208052026 2026:CGHC:29000 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4865 of 2026 Vishal @ Ganga Yadav S/o Devendra Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o. Subhash Nagar Near Vriddhashram Ps Telibandha, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Ps Telibandha, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 27/2026, registered at Police Station :Telibandha, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. 2. The earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 3472/2026, vide order date 13.05.2026, on the ground of criminal antecedent. Hence, this bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.01.2026, the police of Police Station–Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.), received a secret information that a person was standing near Sheetala Talab, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, carrying a white plastic bag and was attempting to sell Ganja to prospective customers. Acting upon the said information, the police party proceeded to the spot after complying with the necessary legal formalities. Upon reaching the spot, the present applicant was apprehended and during search, he was found in conscious possession of 4.347 kilograms of Ganja kept in the white plastic bag carried by him. The contraband was seized in accordance with law and, upon weighment, was found to be 4.347 kilograms. On the basis of the said seizure, the present crime was registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 3472/2026, vide order date 13.05.2026, on the ground of criminal antecedents that the applicant has seven criminal antecedents, including one case registered under the NDPS Act hence, the new ground which has been raised in this second bail application is that from the possession of the applicant intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs and from the possession of the applicant only 4.347 kg of 3 contraband article (Ganja) has been seized. It is further submitted that however, due to inadvertence, it could not be pointed out that the alleged NDPS antecedent reflected in the charge-sheet pertains to the present crime itself and no other case under the NDPS Act is registered or pending against the applicant. Thus, the earlier rejection was based on an incorrect factual premise and, therefore, the present bail application deserves to be considered afresh on its own merits and the applicant is in jail since 26.01.2026 and so far as the present status of trial, no prosecution witness has been examined till date therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the earlier first bail application of the present applicant was rejected by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 3472/2026 vide order dated 13.05.2026 on the ground that the applicant was found to have several criminal antecedents, including one case under the NDPS Act. He fairly submits that the learned counsel for the applicant has correctly pointed out that the alleged NDPS antecedent referred to in the earlier order pertains to the present crime itself and in fact, no other case under the NDPS Act is registered or pending against the applicant. However, he submits that apart from the present case, the applicant has several other criminal antecedents under the IPC, the Arms Act, the BNS and the Excise Act, which have been duly disclosed and explained by the applicant himself in Part-D of the present bail application. He further submits that the applicant is a habitual offender having repeated criminal involvement and, therefore, merely because the earlier order inadvertently treated the present crime as a previous NDPS 4 antecedent, the same does not entitle the applicant to claim bail. Learned State Counsel further submits that the bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected, as two previous criminal cases under the NDPS Act were found to be pending against him. Thus, considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the nature and gravity of the offence, the recovery of 4.347 kilograms of Ganja from his conscious possession and the fact that the co-accused has also been denied the benefit of bail, he prays that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and quantity of the contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the applicant, the fact that the quantity involved is intermediate quantity and not commercial quantity, the applicant is in judicial custody since 26.01.2026, the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and further considering the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the observation made by this Court while rejecting the earlier bail application regarding one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act was based on an inadvertent factual error, which has not been disputed by the learned State counsel, as no previous case under the NDPS Act was pending against the applicant apart from the present crime, though the applicant has other criminal antecedents under the IPC, BNS, Arms Act and Excise Act, which have been duly explained in Part-D of the bail application and keeping in view that no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is 5 required and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, as no prosecution witness has been examined, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. So far as the rejection of bail of the co-accused is concerned, the same does not come in the way of the present applicant, as the case of the co-accused stands on a different footing inasmuch as two criminal cases under the NDPS Act were found pending against him, whereas admittedly no such previous case under the NDPS Act is pending against the present applicant. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Vishal @ Ganga Yadav, involved in Crime No. 27/2026, registered at Police Station :Telibandha, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act., be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 6 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 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. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal