1 CGHC010193542026 2026:CGHC:28988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4977 of 2026 Santosh Patnayak @ Pappu S/o Late Chiranjeev Lal Patnayak Aged About 42 Years R/o Nayapara, Motilal Nehru Ward, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Bodhghat Jagdalpur, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. 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. 450/2025 registered at Police Station - Bodhghat, District - Jagdalpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the prosecution case, acting on secret information, the police allegedly recovered a total of 90 strips of Alprazolam Tablets I.P. 0.5 mg (Becalm), each strip containing 15 tablets, i.e., a total of 1,350 tablets, from the possession of the present applicant and the other co-accused persons. It is further alleged that each tablet weighed 0.100 gram, with ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.13 11:47:21 +0530 2 the total weight of the seized tablets being 135 grams. The police arrested the accused persons, and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law and, therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. He further submits that, as per the charge-sheet, the police allegedly recovered 90 strips of Alprazolam Tablets I.P. 0.5 mg (Becalm), each strip containing 15 tablets, i.e., a total of 1,350 tablets. According to the seizure memo and the charge-sheet, the weight of each tablet is shown as 0.100 gram. However, the prosecution has erroneously calculated the total weight of the alleged contraband as 135 grams. He submits that, even as per the prosecution's own case, the calculation of the quantity is erroneous and, therefore, the alleged recovery does not constitute an intermediate or commercial quantity under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Thus, the prosecution's assertion regarding the applicability of intermediate or commercial quantity is based on a manifest error, which goes to the root of the case and entitles the applicant to the grant of bail. He further submits that the Investigating Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 41, 42, and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, rendering the alleged search and seizure legally unsustainable and raising serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. He also submits that no Drug Inspector was present at the spot at the time of the alleged seizure of the contraband, which further casts doubt on the manner in which the seizure was conducted. He further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.10.2025, and the conclusion of the 3 trial is likely to take a considerable time. Accordingly, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that, although the quantity of the alleged contraband recovered from the possession of the applicant may fall within the category of small quantity, the applicant has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding his conscious possession of the said contraband. He further submits that the prosecution has collected sufficient material during the course of investigation to establish the applicant's involvement in the alleged offence. Therefore, merely because the recovered contraband is of small quantity, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, and the fact that the applicant has allegedly failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding his conscious possession of the seized contraband, this Court is of the considered opinion that, at this stage, no case for grant of regular bail is made out. The question regarding the exact quantity of the contraband recovered and the alleged non- compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, are matters to be considered by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced during trial. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Santosh Patnayak @ Pappu, involved in Crime No. 450/2025 registered at Police Station - 4 Bodhghat, District - Jagdalpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 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