1 CGHC010286362026 2026:CGHC:32643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6862 of 2026 Kiyamuddin S/o Kamaruddin Aged About 26 Years R/o Tala P. S. Kandhai Hanumanganj, District Pratapgarh, U. P. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Basna District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2026 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. 459/2025 registered at Police Station – Basna District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station Basna received secret information that certain persons were RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 illegally transporting and possessing contraband ganja for the purpose of sale. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a search and seizure operation near Palasapali Barrier and allegedly recovered 60 kg 300 grams of contraband ganja from the spot. On the basis of the said recovery and the material collected during the course of investigation, the police registered an offence against the applicant and other co-accused persons under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Hence, the present bail application. 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 whatsoever with the alleged offence. It is contended that the prosecution story suffers from serious contradictions and procedural irregularities which create substantial doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged recovery. He submits that while the FIR records the time of the incident as 11:30 A.M., the prosecution documents reveal that notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were allegedly issued at 08:00 A.M., consent proceedings were completed at 08:20 A.M., and searches of police personnel were conducted between 08:35 A.M. and 08:45 A.M., thereby indicating that investigative proceedings had commenced much before the officially recorded time of the incident. It is further submitted that the vehicle search memo, recovery memo and identification proceedings were allegedly completed at 09:00 A.M., 09:10 A.M. and 09:20 A.M. respectively, which is inconsistent with the prosecution case that the incident occurred at 11:30 A.M. He further 3 argues that the independent witnesses, in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the BNSS, stated that they were called to the spot at about 07:00 A.M. and were informed that the accused persons had already been apprehended, thereby rendering the prosecution timeline doubtful. It is also contended that the weighing proceedings and related documents contain material discrepancies and inconsistencies regarding the timing and preparation of documents. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the seizure memo records a total weight of 60 kg 300 grams including the bags and packing material, whereas the statements of independent witnesses indicate that the net weight of ganja was 60 kilograms, thereby creating doubt regarding the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that the applicant was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle and was merely travelling as a passenger in the front seat. The vehicle owner has stated that the truck had been hired for transportation of amla from Uttar Pradesh to Nagpur, and there is no material to establish that the applicant had conscious possession, knowledge or control over the contraband allegedly recovered from the vehicle. He submits that the site map prepared during investigation is incomplete and does not depict the position of the vehicle, accused persons, police personnel or witnesses. It is further contended that no contraband was recovered from the personal possession of the applicant and that his implication is based merely on suspicion and the memorandum statement of the main accused. He submits that the prosecution has failed to establish exclusive and conscious 4 possession of the alleged contraband and has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that the allegations against the applicant are false and fabricated. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, he is in jail since 10.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the quantity of contraband article i.e. total 60 kg 300 grams Ganja from the joint possession of the present applicant along with co-accused person, which is much above the commercial quantity, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and further the fact that the contraband article i.e. total 60 kg 300 grams of Ganja has been seized from the joint possession of the present applicant and co-accused person, is much above the commercial quantity and the applicant has failed to give any explanation for the same, further it cannot be a case of false implication. 5 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Kiyamuddin, involved in Crime No. 459/2025 registered at Police Station – Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan