1 CGHC010228412026 2026:CGHC:30986 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5392 of 2026 1 - Lakhan Verma S/o Shri Samaru Lal Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chhachhi Thana- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Mukesh Kumar Dhruv S/o Shri Bhupendra Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Chhachhi Thana- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Lawan, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smita Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2026 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 174/2026, registered at Police Station – Lawan, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.22 11:06:21 +0530 2 Section 20-B of the NDPS, 1985. 2. According to the prosecution, on 27/05/2026 Police officer of Police Station Lawan received the secret information from the informant with the averment that the rider of Motor cycle Pulsar CG-11-AX-9159 are carring contraband article Ganja so police has made the search teem stopped the rider of motor cycle asked their identification and made the search alleged to be seized 10.2024 Kg contraband article ganja which was kept in packets covered with Cello tape, after complying the mandatory provisions of law the articles were seized Dehati Nalishi was registered and applicants were arrested for the alleged commission of offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The material available on record does not prima facie establish their involvement in the commission of the alleged crime. It is the specific case of the applicants that, on the date of the alleged incident, the police officials of the concerned police station were conducting routine vehicle checking and, since the applicants could not produce the requisite documents of the vehicle, an altercation ensued between them and the police personnel, following which a false case of recovery of ganja was fabricated against them. It is further submitted that the mandatory provisions relating to search and seizure under the NDPS Act were not complied with, as the applicants were neither informed of their legal right nor produced before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate prior to the search, and their signatures were obtained on prepared documents. The quantity of the alleged contraband 3 recovered is less than the commercial quantity, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, and therefore their continued detention is wholly unwarranted. The applicants are young persons aged about 25 and 23 years, respectively, and prolonged incarceration would seriously prejudice their future prospects. They are also the sole breadwinners of their respective families, and their continued custody is causing severe financial hardship to their dependents. The applicants are permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. They are ready and willing to furnish adequate sureties and undertake to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting them the benefit of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that 10.2024 kg of contraband ganja was recovered from the possession of the applicants, which prima facie connects them with the alleged offence. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, learned State Counsel contends that the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of bail and prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the contraband recovered from the possession of the applicants is less than the commercial quantity as prescribed under the NDPS Act. 4 Further, considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicants have been in judicial custody since 27.05.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicants, Lakhan Verma & Mukesh Kumar Dhruv involved in Crime No. 174/2026, registered at Police Station – Lawan, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20-B of the NDPS, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iv) The applicants 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 them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav