1 CGHC010289002026 2026:CGHC:32342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6783 of 2026 Prakash Dhurve S/o Subhash Dhurve, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Farid Nagar, Dera Basti, Ward No.07, Bhilai Police Station - Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.313/2026, registered at Police Station - Supela, District : Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 25.02.2026, Assistant Sub-Inspector Gangaram Yadav, posted at Police Station Supela, District Durg, received secret information at about 09:10 A.M. that a person was PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.29 11:32:02 +0530 2 illegally possessing and selling ganja near the bushes situated behind the Government School at Farid Nagar, Dera Basti, Supela. After recording the said information and completing the requisite preliminary formalities, a police team was constituted, and independent witnesses were associated with the proceedings. Thereafter, the police party proceeded to the spot and cordoned off the area. A person matching the description provided by the informer was apprehended. Upon inquiry, he disclosed his name as Prakash Dhurve, aged about 37 years, a resident of Farid Nagar, Dera Basti, Ward No. 07, Bhilai, Police Station Supela, District Durg. The accused was informed of the information received against him as well as of his legal rights in relation to the search and seizure proceedings. After obtaining his consent and preparing the necessary memorandum and panchnama, his personal search was conducted in the presence of the independent witnesses. During the course of the search, the police allegedly recovered a white plastic bag being carried by the accused/applicant. Upon opening the bag, a polythene packet containing a substance suspected to be ganja was found. The recovered substance was weighed on an electronic weighing machine in the presence of the witnesses. The total weight of the contraband, along with the packing material, was found to be approximately 1 kilogram 182 grams, whereas the net weight of the ganja was found to be 1 kilogram 140 grams. The value of the seized ganja was assessed at approximately Rs.55,000/-. In addition, an amount of Rs.1,250/-, alleged to be the sale proceeds of the contraband, was also recovered from the possession of the accused, making the total value of the seized property Rs.56,250/-. The prosecution further alleges that the contraband and the cash were seized and sealed, and the necessary seizure proceedings were carried out at the spot. Thereafter, the accused was arrested, and a Dehati Nalishi was 3 prepared, on the basis of which FIR No. 0313/2026 was registered at Police Station Supela for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The investigation was thereafter taken up by the police. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the applicant is 1.140 kilograms of ganja, which is neither a commercial quantity nor does it attract the rigours of the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which three cases are registered under the BNS, 2023. Out of the said three cases, one has been amicably compromised, while the other two are still pending. The remaining case is registered under the NDPS Act, as Crime No. 1117/2025, which has already culminated in a judgment dated 11.12.2025, whereby the applicant was sentenced to the period already undergone along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 25.02.2026. As the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which three cases are registered under the BNS, 2023. Out of the said three cases, one has been amicably compromised, while the other two are still pending. The remaining case is registered under the NDPS Act, as Crime No. 1117/2025, which has 4 already culminated in a judgment dated 11.12.2025, whereby the applicant was sentenced to the period already undergone along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- which shows that he is a habitual offender. In view of the applicant's criminal antecedents, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, as well as the fact that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which three cases are registered under the BNS, 2023, and one case under the NDPS Act, in which he has already been convicted and sentenced to the period already undergone along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, this Court is of the view that the applicant appears to be a habitual offender and it cannot be said to be a case of false implication and 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 it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Prakash Dhurve, involved in Crime No.313/2026, registered at Police Station - Supela, District : Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 5 9. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti