1 CGHC010320282026 2026:CGHC:36826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7640 of 2026 Deepak Rao S/o Late Mahesh Rao Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Semrahdih, Ward No. 10, Shitlapara, Police Station- Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Rajim, District- Gariyabandh, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2026 1. This is the 0rst bail application 0led 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. 150/2026 registered at Police Station Rajim, District- Gariyabandh (C.G.) for the o9ence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station Rajim, District- Gariyabandh (C.G.), received a secret information RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 from the informant and on the said information police conducted a raid and seized contraband article i.e. total 13.545 kgs of Ganja from the joint possession of the present applicant and co-accused perons. Thereafter, o9ence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered against present applicant and co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the contraband article i.e. 13.545 kgs of Ganja was not seized from the joint possession of the present applicant and co-accused persons. He also submits that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, he has only one case under the IPC in which he has already been acquitted. He also submits that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and he is in jail since 31.05.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been 0led in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. He further submits that from the joint possession of the present applicant along with co-accused persons total 13.545 kgs of Ganja was seized. He also submits that the applicant has 3 one previous criminal antecedent under the IPC. 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 that the said contraband Ganja which was recovered form the joint possession of the present applicant and co-accused persons is less than commercial quantity and also considering the fact that in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been 0led before the competent Court, the applicant has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, he has only one case under the IPC in which he has already been acquitted, and he is in jail since 31.05.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, 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. Let the Applicant – Deepak Rao, involved in Crime No. 150/2026 registered at Police Station Rajim, District- Gariyabandh (C.G.) for the o9ence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, 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 0le an undertaking to the e9ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 0xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in 4 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 0xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suCcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 0xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 0xed 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 suCcient 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. OCce is directed to send a certi0ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan