1 CGHC010307782026 2026:CGHC:35737 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7408 of 2026 Rajinder Kumar S/o Mukhtiyar Lal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khemkaran, P.S. Khemkaran, District Tarn Taran, Punjab (Correct Details Mentioned) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. This is the First 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. 65/2026 registered at Police Station – Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the o8ence punishable under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 01.02.2026, the jurisdictional police received secret information regarding certain RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 persons allegedly engaged in selling heroin at BSP School Road, Indrapuri, Hirri Mine, whereupon the police reached the spot and apprehended the accused persons. During the course of search, a total quantity of 34.84 grams of heroin was allegedly seized from three accused persons, out of which 11.300 grams was seized from the present applicant. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged o8ence was found and, after completion of the investigation, the concerned police authorities 0led the charge-sheet before the competent Court. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged o8ence. It is further submitted that the personal search of the applicant was conducted by the police o?cial and not before or in the presence of a Magistrate, as required under law, thereby rendering the search and seizure proceedings legally questionable. He further submits that, in order to establish the o8ence under Section 21(B) of the NDPS Act, the prosecution is required to prove that the contraband was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the applicant, which has not been satisfactorily established in the present case. It is also submitted that the quantity allegedly seized from the applicant falls within the intermediate quantity and is not commercial quantity. Further, there is non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act, and the manner in which the alleged seizure was conducted raises serious doubt regarding the recovery of the contraband from the 3 applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act in the State of Punjab, which is pending, charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he is in jail since 01.02.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been 0led in the present case before the competent Court. He submits that a total quantity of 34.84 grams of heroin was allegedly seized from three accused persons, out of which 11.300 grams was seized from the present applicant. She also submits that the applicant has 01 criminal antecedent in the similar nature which is pending, shows that the applicant is involved in such o8ences and is a habitual o8ender, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that a total quantity of 34.84 grams of heroin was allegedly seized from three accused persons, out of which 11.300 grams was seized from the present applicant and further considering the fact that the applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act in the State of Punjab, which is pending, shows that the applicant is involved in such o8ences and is a habitual o8ender, 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 4 559, 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 0t case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Rajinder Kumar, involved in Crime No. 65/2026 registered at Police Station – Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the o8ence punishable under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. O?ce 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