1 / 5 CGHC010224402026 2026:CGHC:30043 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5527 of 2026 Rupesh Meshram S/o Late Rajesh Meshram Aged About 30 Years R/o Harnabandha Behind Shri Shivam Shopping Mall Ward No. 11 City Kotwali Police Station Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station - City Kotwali, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2026 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. 678/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District : Durg Chhattisgarh, for the offence under Section 21(b) and 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 18.12.2025, on the basis of VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.16 11:11:28 +0530 2 / 5 a secret information received that certain persons were attempting to sell contraband tablets and capsules near Nadi Road, Durg, the police conducted a raid. During the raid, the present applicant along with the co-accused persons was apprehended, and the following contraband articles were allegedly seized from their respective possession: (i) Javed – 280 capsules of Practin; (ii) Rupesh Meshram (present applicant) – 80 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus; (iii) Amit Shrivastava – 370 tablets of Dexon; (iv) Gulab Bhote – 24 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus and 100 tablets of Decdan; (v) Mangal Sarthi – 40 tablets of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus and 40 tablets of Decdan; and (vi) Mahadev Sahu – 6 bottles of Rexcof DX Cough Syrup (100 ml each). On the basis of the aforesaid seizure, the present crime was registered against the applicant and the co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no material available on record to connect him with the commission of the alleged offence. It is contended that the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court and, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has already been acquitted in the earlier cases registered under the NDPS Act, except in one case in which he has already undergone conviction and paid the fine imposed. Learned counsel submits that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the investigating agency has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, and there is a break in the chain of custody of the seized contraband, which seriously affects the 3 / 5 prosecution case. It is also argued that the alleged recovery from the applicant consists of 80 tablets of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus containing 50 mg of Tramadol each (total 40 grams), which falls within the intermediate quantity and is below the commercial quantity of 250 grams; therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. It is further submitted that the applicant has remained in judicial custody for more than five months, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the trial has commenced but only one out of fourteen prosecution witnesses has been examined, and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, has deep roots in society, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient material on record to prima facie establish the involvement of the applicant. It is submitted that, acting on secret information, the police conducted a raid on 18.12.2025 near Nadi Road, Durg, during which the applicant was apprehended along with the co-accused persons, and 80 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus were recovered from his conscious possession. It is further submitted that the applicant has 11 criminal antecedents, which clearly indicate his criminal propensity, and therefore he is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the recovery effected from the applicant, his criminal antecedents, and the material collected during the investigation, learned State Counsel 4 / 5 submits that no case for grant of bail is made out and, therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that 80 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus containing Tramadol were allegedly seized from the possession of the applicant, which is less than the commercial quantity. Further, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 18.12.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Let the Applicant - Rupesh Meshram, involved in Crime No. 678/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District : Durg Chhattisgarh, for the offence under Section 21(b) and 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 / 5 (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. 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 vaibhav