1 CGHC010273222026 2026:CGHC:30453 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6378 of 2026 1 - Damesh Sahu, S/o Shri Omkar Sahu, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village- Mudpar, Police Station- Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station- Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 17.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 54/2026 registered at RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.05.2026, the Police Station Ghumka received secret information to the effect that the applicant was transporting contraband ganja on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 12-AS-1229. Acting upon the said information, the police intercepted the applicant and conducted a search of the motorcycle. During the search, 14.520 kilograms of contraband ganja was allegedly recovered from concealed packets kept in the motorcycle and a bag. As the applicant failed to produce any valid document authorizing possession or transportation of the said contraband, the police seized the recovered ganja, registered Crime No. 54/2026 for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and arrested the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged contraband. It is contended that the mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, governing search, seizure and arrest, including compliance with Section 50 of the Act, have not been duly followed, thereby vitiating the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of 14.520 kilograms of ganja is of intermediate quantity and, therefore, the 3 rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.05.2026 and no further custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, and, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant was found in conscious possession of 14.520 kilograms of contraband ganja, which was seized in accordance with law. It is contended that the allegations are serious in nature and are supported by the material collected during the investigation. It is, therefore, prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the alleged recovery of 14.520 kilograms of ganja is of intermediate quantity, the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.05.2026, has no criminal antecedents and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial 4 detention of the applicant is not warranted. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, subject to 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 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) 5 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. 7. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from today, if there is no legal impediment. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - d/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Ruchi