1 CGHC010223342026 2026:CGHC:32394 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5522 of 2026 Pusulal S/o Shri Garamlal Thakrail Aged About 32 Years Occupation - Labour, R/o Lamtakhur Soda, Police Station - Lamta, Tehsil And District - Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Sankara, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Deepak Mishra, Advocate appeared through V.C. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2026 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.192/2025 registered at Police Station – Sankara, District : Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief, is that, on 25.12.2025 an information was received from informant by the police station at Sankra, Distt. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.29 14:34:42 +0530 2 Mahasmund (C.G.), that two motorcycle (Pulsar MP Passig and TVS rider) is coming from Odisha Bhagatdevi through NH 53 road and going Sankara with the huge amount of Narcotics substance i.e. Ganja. On such information police by following the legal procedure reached to the informed place and intercepted the motorcycles and made search and recovered the plastic bag, including the membrane, contained 15 kg of Ganja and weighted 15.100 kg, and the Rajshree bag, including the bag and membrane, Contained 5 kg of ganja. Total 20 kg, worth Rs. 2,00,000/- Ganja from joint possession of the applicant and the co- accused. That, the matter was investigated upon, and an offence under section 20(B) of NDPS Act was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is contended that the allegations against the applicant are false, fabricated, and based on mere suspicion, without any specific role being attributed to him. Learned counsel further submits that there are material contradictions between the contents of the FIR and the statement of prosecution witness Govind Sao regarding the alleged seizure and weighing of the contraband, which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case. It is argued that the applicant has been arrayed as an accused without proper investigation and that the mandatory provisions relating to search, seizure, and arrest under the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 42 to 58, have not been duly complied with. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court rejected the bail application merely on the ground that the quantity of Ganja recovered was above the small quantity, without examining whether the alleged contraband was 3 recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant or whether the mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act had been followed. Learned counsel also submits that the investigation has been completed, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, has never been involved in any other criminal case, and has remained in judicial custody since 25.12.2025. It is contended that the applicant is about 32 years of age, is the sole caregiver of his aged parents who are wholly dependent upon him, and his continued incarceration is causing grave hardship to his family. It is further argued that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, the applicant is a law- abiding citizen, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the trial and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting him regular bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the fact that the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the applicant is less than the commercial quantity, and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted, as well as the fact that the co-accused, namely Hariraam and Vijay, have already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2882 of 2026 vide order 4 dated 02.07.2026, and further taking into consideration that the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 25.12.2025, has no criminal antecedents, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Pusulal, involved in Crime No.192/2025 registered at Police Station – Sankara, District : Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act., be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 her 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 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (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 vaibhav