1 CGHC010267702026 2026:CGHC:32008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6745 of 2026 Kishan Singh S/o Late Mukhtar Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Near Kaushal Furniture Quarter No. 16 Zone 03, Khurshipar, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, P.S. - Khurshipar, Bhilai, District – Durg, C.G. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh as well as Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits for the defect which has been pointed out by the Registry, that the applicant has rightly mentioned the Police Station in the bail application, whereas in the order dated 15.04.2026, granting bail to the co-accused Randeep Singh in MCRC No.1893/2026, is wrongly mentioned as “Police Station – Chawni, District – Durg”. Hence, the defects which have been pointed out by the Registry of this Court is waived off. 2. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No.02/2026, registered at Police Station- Khurshipar, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 21(b) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that Police has received information RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 from the informant on 02/01/2026 that co-accused Mithilesh Pathak and another Parmeshwar Thakur are sitting near Mini Stadium, Dabrapara with an illicit motive of gaining illegal money are selling heroine. Based on the said information, Police had formed a raid team and on reaching the spot they encircled the accused and on search they have seized the contraband substance from the custody of the Mithilesh Pathak and another Parmeshwar Thakur, when the memorandum statement of Mithilesh Pathak and Parmeshwar Thakur was taken, they stated they are working for Rajji and Kishan Kumar and under their instructions they went to Punjab to Bira Sardar for purchasing heroine and give it to Rajji and Kishan Kumar, and Rajji and Kishan Kumar used to pay them money. They used to sell the contraband as well as make self consumption and the co-accused namely Rajji and Kishan Kumar are there beside the wall of stadium, based on the said statement, Rajji and Kishan Kumar (Present applicant) were searched and 18.370 GM of contraband and cash was seized from them and they had no documents for the said contraband article which goes to show that the applicant and Co-accused used to sell the contraband article. Hence, this application. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.06.2026 in MCRC No.5061/2026, 15.04.2026 in MCRC No.1893/2026. It is further submitted that no such seizure has been made from the possession of 3 the applicant and only on the basis of the conjectures ans surmises reflecting from the memorandum statement of the co-accused, the applicant has been roped in the crime in question. The applicant is in jail since 02.01.2026. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that a total of 18.370 GM of Heroine has been seized from the possession of the co-accused persons, and the name of the applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of other co-accused persons that the applicant along with the co- accused is said to have been involved in the transportation of the said contraband article heroine and it appears to be an organized crime. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that though the bail application of two co-accused persons have been allowed by this Court in MCRC Nos. 5061/2026 and 1893/2026 on 17.06.2026 and 15.04.2026, but a bail application of one co-accused namely Nihal Rai has also been rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2026 in MCRC No.4548/2026 on the ground that he had criminal antecedents of similar nature, and the applicant is also having a criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, being registered as Crime No.03/2026 at Police Station – Jamul, District – Durg (C.G.), and the said case is still pending for consideration before the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that though the applicant is also wanted in a case under the NDPS Act in Crime No.03/2026, Police Station – Jamul, District – Durg, but the applicant is 4 already enlarged on bail in the said case by this Court vide order dated 15.06.2026 in MCRC No.2435/2026, and a copy of the order has been filed with the bail application through covering memo, also the other co- accused namely Rahul @ Gourav Pathak has been enlarged on bail by the trial Court in Crime No.03/2026 registered at Police Station Jamul, District – Durg, hence, the applicant be enlarged on bail. 7. Learned State counsel further opposed and submits that from the perusal of the order dated 15.06.2026 passed by this Court in MCRC No.2435/2026 granting bail to the applicant in Crime No.03/2026, it goes to show that while granting bail to the applicant in para 6, this Court has considered that the co-accused Rajji Kaur had already been enlarged on bail in MCRC No.1848/2026 on 23.02.2026, but as the two previous criminal antecedents of the applicant as was pointed out by the learned State counsel in the said case was not under the NDPS Act, as it was for BNS and Arms Act, and hence, he was granted bail in the said case, but today when the present bail application has been filed for Crime No.02/2026 under the NDPS Act, it is submitted that while the applicant was in jail in Crime No.03/2026, the present case was also made. Though no such recovery has been made from the applicant’s possession in the present case, but the applicant is also involved in a case under the NDPS Act in which he was granted bail by this Court, the said case is still pending for consideration before the trial Court, and in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the applicant being a habitual offender under the NDPS Act, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 5 available on record. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having considered their rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary as well as the material available on record, it transpires that though learned counsel for the applicant has contended that he has been falsely implicated, that no recovery has been effected from his exclusive possession and that his implication is primarily based upon the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, and has further relied upon the orders whereby similarly situated co-accused persons were granted bail by this Court, but the prosecution case reveals that a total of 18.370 grams of heroin was seized during the course of the raid, and the memorandum statements of the co-accused specifically disclose the role of the present applicant in the transportation of the said contraband article, indicating his involvement in an organized crime. Though the applicant has placed reliance upon the order dated 15.06.2026 passed by this Court in MCRC No.2435/2026, whereby he was granted bail in another NDPS case arising out of Crime No.03/2026, Police Station Jamul, District Durg, the said order itself reveals that bail was granted therein after considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to that case, particularly on the ground that the criminal antecedents pointed out at that stage were not under the NDPS Act. However, the present case stands on a different footing, as the applicant is now facing another prosecution under the NDPS Act and the earlier NDPS case is still pending before the trial Court. The pendency of another NDPS case against the applicant, coupled with the present allegations, prima facie indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender in committing the offences under the NDPS Act. In 6 such circumstances, the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly attracted, and this Court is required to record its satisfaction that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would not indulged in such activities in similar NDPS Act. At this stage, on the basis of the material collected during investigation, including the memorandum statements of the co- accused, the circumstances surrounding the seizure of commercial quantity of heroin and the applicant's involvement in another pending NDPS case, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. The principle of parity also does not come to the aid of the applicant, as the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, in view of his involvement in another NDPS case and the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the quantity of contraband involved, the applicant's criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, and 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 not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Kishan Singh, involved in Crime No.02/2026, registered at Police Station- Khurshipar, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 21(b) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act, is rejected at this stage. 7 12. Needless to say that the learned trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 13. 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 Rajshekhar / Rahul Dewangan