CGHC010267672026 2026:CGHC:29671 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6278 of 2026 Roshan Yadav S/o- Tribhuvan Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o- Notari Nagar Tatibandh C Block P.S. Amanaka District- Raipur (C.G.) (As Per Challan) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Khamtarai District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gangwani, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.120/2026, registered at Police Station - Khamtarai District – Raipur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 22(B) of the NDPS Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.02.2026, the police of Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) recovered VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.14 16:15:21 +0530 Nitrazepam Tablets weighing 72.59 grams from the conscious possession of the present applicant, Nitrazepam Tablets weighing 145.30 grams from the possession of co-accused Rahul, and SPASMO PROXYVON PLUS (Tramadol) Tablets weighing 43.28 grams from the possession of co-accused Avinash. Thus, the police allegedly recovered a total of 363.19 grams of Nitrazepam Tablets and 43.28 grams of SPASMO PROXYVON PLUS (Tramadol) Tablets from the joint possession of the accused persons. Since none of the accused could produce any valid licence or authority for possessing the said psychotropic substances, the contraband was seized in accordance with law. Thereafter, Crime No. 120/2026 was registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur, against the applicant and the co-accused for the offences punishable under the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent, having neither committed nor participated in the alleged offence. It is contended that there is no direct or cogent evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of the crime, and the chain of circumstantial evidence is also incomplete. It is further submitted that the total quantity of Nitrazepam Tablets allegedly recovered from the applicant and the co- accused is 363.19 grams, which is below the commercial quantity of 500 grams as specified in Entry No. 221 of the Central Government Notification issued under the NDPS Act; therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. It is also argued that the alleged contraband was not being transported or sold by the applicant and there is no material to establish his conscious possession or involvement in any illegal trade. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 20.02.2026, is the sole breadwinner of his family, and his continued incarceration has caused severe hardship to his dependants. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, belongs to a respectable family, has no intention to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence, and is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant was found in conscious possession of Nitrazepam Tablets, which are psychotropic substances covered under the NDPS Act. It was further submitted that substantial quantities of Nitrazepam Tablets and SPASMO PROXYVON PLUS (Tramadol) Tablets were recovered from the applicant and the co-accused, and none of them could produce any valid licence or authorization for possessing the same. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the applicant has a criminal antecedent, as one previous case under the NDPS Act, namely Crime No. 87/2026, is also registered against him, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the material collected during the investigation, and the applicant's criminal antecedent, it was prayed that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the material available on record, this Court finds that one previous case under the NDPS Act, bearing Crime No. 87/2026, involving a similar nature of offence, is already pending against the present applicant. On the other hand, the co-accused, whose bail application has been allowed by this Court, has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing and he cannot claim parity with the co-accused. Further, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, criminal antecedents are a relevant factor while considering an application for bail. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Roshan Yadav, involved in with Crime No.120/2026, registered at Police Station - Khamtarai District - Raipur(C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 22(B) of the NDPS Act, is rejected. SSd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav