1 CGHC010237102026 2026:CGHC:29197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5576 of 2026 1 - Ankit Kumar Sharma Son of Ram Ratan Sharma (Wrongly Mentioned As Ratanlal Sharma In The Impugned Order), Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village Tajsar, Police Station Fatepur, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 51/2026 registered at Police Station –Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of NDPS Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, in brief, on 29.01.2026, the police received credible information from an informant that two persons travelling in a vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-05/A-3425 were transporting illicit contraband ganja. Acting upon the said information, the police intercepted the aforesaid vehicle and conducted its search in accordance with law. During the search, a white plastic bag was allegedly recovered from the vehicle, containing 30 kg and 920 grams of cannabis (ganja). Thereafter, the contraband was seized in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and Crime No. 51/2026 was registered against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery has been shown from the joint possession of the accused persons and the applicant, who is a daily wage labourer, has no conscious or exclusive possession of the seized contraband. It is further contended that the mandatory provisions of Sections 41, 42, 50, 3 55 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have not been complied with, thereby vitiating the entire search and seizure proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 29.01.2026, has no criminal antecedents and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the joint possession of the accused persons. It is further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have been duly complied with. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the entire material available on record, this Court finds that the alleged recovery of 30 kg and 920 grams of cannabis (ganja), which is a commercial quantity, has been made from the joint possession of the accused persons. At this stage, the contentions raised by the applicant regarding non- compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 involve disputed questions of fact, which can appropriately be examined during the course of trial. Considering the nature and gravity of the 4 allegations, the commercial quantity of contraband allegedly recovered, and the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the applicant, Ankit Kumar Sharma, in connection with Crime No. 51/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, deserves to be and is hereby rejected at this stage. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Ruchi