1 CGHC010284562026 2026:CGHC:31735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6679 of 2026 Hemant Pandey S/o Ashok Pandey Aged About 26 Years R/o Station Para Dhamtari, At Present Resident Of Mahima Sagar Ward Maila, Gadda, Atal Awas Dhamtari P.S. City Kotwali Dhamtari District Dhamtari C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari District Dhamtari C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 24.07.2026 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.91/2026, registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 20(b)(ii)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 05.04.2026, while the police party was on crime detection and town patrolling duty, a secret informer informed the police that the applicant/accused, Hemant Pandey, was standing near Maila Gaddha, Mahima Sagar Ward, Dhamtari, carrying a bag containing ganja and was searching for customers to sell the contraband. Acting upon the information, the police completed the requisite formalities under the NDPS Act, reached the spot, apprised the accused of his statutory rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and conducted his search in the presence of independent witnesses. During the search, 272 grams of ganja, valued at Rs.2,700, along with six small plastic pouches allegedly meant for sale, were recovered from the bag in the possession of the accused. As the accused failed to produce any valid authority for possessing the contraband and allegedly disclosed during interrogation that he had been purchasing ganja from an unknown person in Village Chhati for the last fifteen days for the purpose of resale, the recovered contraband was seized, the accused was arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the contraband Ganja was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. He further submits that that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant 3 from the superior authority. He also submits that from the possession of the applicant small 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 possession of the applicant only 272 grams Ganja has been seized. He later submits that the applicant has 16 criminal antecedents, out of which, 8 cases are of preventive actions taken against the applicant and rest of the cases are under the IPC and the Arms Act, further the applicant is in jail since 05.04.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submit that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant has total 17 criminal antecedents, out of which, 8 cases are of preventive actions taken against the applicant and rest of the cases are under the IPC and the Arms Act. She also submits that from the possession of the applicant contraband article i.e. 272 grams of Ganja is seized, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of 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 and the fact that though the applicant has 17 criminal antecedents, 4 out of which, 8 cases are of preventive actions taken against the applicant and rest of the cases are under the IPC and the Arms Act, but none of the offences are under the NDPS Act and the quantity of contraband article i.e. 272 grams Ganja recovered from the possession of the applicant is less than the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act, further considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 05.04.2026 and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Hemant Pandey, involved in Crime No.91/2026, registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(a) of the NDPS Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety 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 5 proclamation 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. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge 0. Akhil