1 CGHC010275312026 2026:CGHC:31178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6467 of 2026 1 - Irshad Khan S/o Kurban Khan Aged About 37 Years R/o Bidpara, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohammad Washim S/o Barkat Mohammad Aged About 43 Years R/o Jogidipa, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Satish Gorakh S/o Chandraprakash Gorakh Aged About 31 Years R/o Sonkarpara, P.S. Jutmil, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - City Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22/07/2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 278/2026, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that on 25.05.2026, acting on secret information that applicant No.1, Irshad Khan, was in possession of contraband, the police of Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh conducted a search at his house and allegedly recovered and seized 6.168 kg of ganja. It is further alleged that, on the basis of the memorandum statement of applicant No.1, applicant Nos.2 and 3 were also implicated and arrested. Thereafter, the present crime was registered against the applicants. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and the contraband Ganja was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicants. He further submits that that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. He also submits that from the possession of the applicant No.1 intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs and from the 3 possession of the applicant No.1 only 6.168 kg Ganja has been seized. He later submits that the applicant Nos.1 and 3 have no criminal antecedent, whereas applicant No.2 has one criminal antecedent registered at Crime No.52/2026 under the BNS, further the applicant Nos.1 and 2 are in jail since 25.05.2026 and applicant No.3 is in jail since 10.06.2026, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that from the possession of the applicant No.1 contraband article i.e. 6.168 kg of Ganja is seized and the names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 came into light from the memorandum statement of applicant No.1, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, applicant Nos.1 and 3 have no criminal antecedents and applicant No.2 has total 21 criminal antecedents commencing from the year 2007 to 2026, therefore, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that though no seizure of any contraband article has been made from applicant No.2, as the same was seized from applicant No.1, 4 but considering the fact that applicant No. 2, namely, Mohammad Washim is having 21 criminal antecedents commencing from the year 2007 to 2026, which shows that he is a habitual offender and has misused the liberty to bail granted to him earlier, also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant No.2 on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant No.2 – Mohammad Washim, involved in Crime No. 278/2026, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act, is rejected. 8. So far as applicant Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, they have no criminal antecedents and the quantity of contraband article i.e. 6.168 kgs of Ganja seized from the possession of applicant No.1 is less than the commercial quantity, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, further considering their detention period, applicant No.1 is in jail since 25.05.2026 and applicant No.3 is in jail since 10.06.2026, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, as such, this Court is of the view that the applicant Nos.1 and 3 are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 5 9. Accordingly, the bail application with respect to applicant No.1, Irshad Khan and applicant No.3, Satish Gorakh, is allowed. 10. Let applicant No.1 - Irshad Khan and applicant No.3 - Satish Gorakh, involved in Crime No. 278/2026, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two 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 their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail 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. 6 (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 applicants are 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. 11. 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 Akhil