1 CGHC010189182026 2026:CGHC:30712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4456 of 2026 Nandkumar Sahu @ Nanda S/o. Mathuram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o. Village Rasti, Police Station Kijirkela, District- Sundgarh, (Odisha) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Outpost Raghunathpur, Police Station Lundra, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 39/2026, registered at Outpost Raghunathpur, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 26.02.2026, the police officials of Outpost Raghunathpur, Police Station Lundra, received a secret information regarding transportation of illegal contraband (Ganja) in a white Hyundai I-20 car bearing registration No. CG-10-AL-8571 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 from Pathalgaon towards Village Gangapur for the purpose of sale. Acting upon the said information, the police intercepted the said vehicle at Village Gangapur and conducted a search, during which 4 kg of Ganja was allegedly recovered from the possession of the co-accused persons. The contraband was seized and the co- accused persons were arrested on the spot. During the course of investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, it was alleged that the present applicant had transported the said contraband for the purpose of sale. Thereafter, the present applicant was implicated in the case, though his name does not find place in the FIR and no contraband article was recovered from his possession. Consequently, the present crime was registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 07.04.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and no contraband article has been recovered from his conscious or exclusive possession. He further submits that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, which have no substantive evidentiary value and there is no independent or corroborative material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR and he has been subsequently implicated during the course of investigation. Learned counsel also submits that there is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 42 and 50 of the 3 NDPS Act, as the statutory procedure has not been duly followed. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of 4 kg of Ganja falls below the commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is in judicial custody since 07.04.2026, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also submitted that a similarly situated co- accused, namely Khiro Yadav, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3910/2026 vide order dated 29.04.2026. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no criminal antecedent. She further submits that though no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant and his implication is based on the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, looking to the seriousness of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 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, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, his implication is based on the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, his name 4 does not find place in the FIR, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is in custody since 07.04.2026, the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered in the case is 4 kg of Ganja, which is less than the intermediate quantity and also considering that a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Nandkumar Sahu @ Nanda, involved in Crime No. 39/2026, registered at Outpost Raghunathpur, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 5 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) 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal