1 CGHC010235462026 2026:CGHC:31555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5806 of 2026 Mod. Saddam S/o Mod. Hanif Aged About 32 Years R/o Santinagar Pathalgaon, P.S. Paghalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lundra, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Priyanka Pathak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.260/2024, registered at Police Station- Lundra, District- Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’). KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.11.2024, the police received secret information that certain persons were engaged in transportation and dealing of contraband ganja. Acting upon the said information, the police proceeded to the indicated spot and noticed a Creta car bearing registration No. CG 13 AG 0995, in which the present applicant and co-accused Md. Sadam were travelling from Pathalgaon. Simultaneously, a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. CG 14 MS 0241, occupied by co-accused Sanjay Patel and Prem Prakash, was found stationed near Village Silsila. It is alleged that both vehicles were involved in the transportation and sale of contraband. Upon search, the police allegedly recovered and seized 20 kg of ganja from the Maruti Swift car and 17.360 kg of ganja from the Creta car occupied by the present applicant and co-accused Md. Sadam. On the basis of the aforesaid seizure, the police registered Crime No. 260/2024 against the present applicant and other co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and arrested the applicant. The investigation was thereafter undertaken in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no nexus with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with during search and seizure, rendering the prosecution case 3 doubtful. Learned counsel argues that co-accused namely Naresh Yadav has already been granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3856/2026 vide order dated 18.05.2026 and further, the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused, hence he is liable to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Further, the applicant is in jail since 16.11.2024 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, as out of 18 witnesses, only 05 have been examined till date. It is lastly submitted that applicant has no previous criminal antecedents registered against him, hence he prays for grant of bail on these grounds. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused namely Naresh Yadav has already been granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3856/2026 vide order dated 18.05.2026 and further, the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 5. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that co-accused Naresh Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 3856/2026 vide order dated 18.05.2026 and the State has not disputed that the case of the present applicant stands on identical footing, 4 coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 16.11.2024, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time as only 05 out of 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and prolonged incarceration. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let applicant, Mod. Saddam, involved in Crime No.260/2024, registered at Police Station- Lundra, District- Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 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 them 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 5 under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal