1 CGHC010291992026 2026:CGHC:34536 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7193 of 2026 Akash Kumar @ Master S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Manjhanpur, Road Sitaru, P.S. Sani, District Kaushambi, U.P. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Devendra Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. This is the second bail application 1led under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 69/2020 registered at Police Station - Devendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), for the o;ence punishable under Section 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2187 of 2021 was alowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.04.2021. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on the basis of secret information received from an informant, the police of Police Station Devendra Nagar, District Raipur, conducted a search and seizure operation, during which the present applicant and the co-accused persons were allegedly found in conscious possession of 27.500 kilograms of contraband cannabis (Ganja). The seized contraband was con1scated in accordance with law, the applicant was arrested, and a criminal case for the o;ences punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was registered against the applicant and the co-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was earlier enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 09.04.2021 passed in MCRC No. 2187/2021 and, after his release, he duly complied with all the conditions of bail. It is submitted that charges were framed on 08.12.2022 and the applicant continued to participate in the trial proceedings through his engaged counsel before the learned Trial Court. However, subsequently, due to circumstances beyond his control, he could not remain present before the Trial Court, as he is a permanent resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh and was entirely dependent upon his counsel for information regarding the dates 1xed in the case. It is contended that the applicant was never informed by his counsel about the issuance of the arrest warrant or the subsequent proceedings, and, therefore, his non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred solely due to a bona de communication gap and negligence on the part of his 3 counsel. He also submits that it is a settled principle of law that a litigant should not ordinarily su;er for the inadvertent mistake or negligence of his counsel, particularly when there is no material to indicate that the litigant intentionally avoided the proceedings or attempted to misuse the concession of bail. It is further submitted that the applicant never absconded with an intention to evade the process of law or defeat the course of justice and that the declaration of the applicant as an absconder and the consequential proceedings under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were only a consequence of his non-appearance arising out of lack of communication with his counsel and not on account of any wilful disregard of the orders of the Trial Court. 5. Learned counsel further submits that while on bail, the applicant neither attempted to inCuence any prosecution witness nor tampered with the prosecution evidence, committed any other o;ence or otherwise misused the liberty granted to him, and the only allegation against him relates to his non-appearance, which stands satisfactorily explained. It is also submitted that the applicant remained in custody from 10.09.2020 till 09.04.2021 and, after his re-arrest on 08.06.2026, he is again in judicial custody and continues to remain incarcerated. He further submits that, so far as the status of the trial is concerned, not a single prosecution witness has been examined till date and, therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is submitted that the applicant has deep roots in society, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and he 4 undertakes to remain personally present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing unless exempted in accordance with law, to cooperate with the trial, and to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant was earlier enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court, however, after being released, he failed to comply with the conditions of bail and remained absent during the trial proceedings without any suEcient cause. It is submitted that, on account of his continuous non- appearance, the learned Trial Court was constrained to issue an arrest warrant against him, pursuant to which he was subsequently apprehended on 08.06.2026. He contends that the conduct of the applicant clearly demonstrates that he has misused the liberty granted to him by this Hon’ble Court and has committed a bail jump, disentitling him from being enlarged on bail once again. It is further pointed out that the co-accused, who had also been granted bail, has likewise remained absconding during the course of trial, thereby indicating that both the accused persons have deliberately evaded the judicial process. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the applicant’s previous conduct, his deliberate violation of the conditions of bail, and the likelihood of his again absconding if released, no indulgence deserves to be shown in his favour. Hence, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary as well as the material available on record, this Court 1nds that the applicant was earlier enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.04.2021 passed in MCRC No. 2187/2021. However, after his release, the applicant failed to adhere to the conditions of bail and remained absent during the trial proceedings, compelling the learned Trial Court to issue a warrant of arrest against him. Thereafter, the applicant was apprehended on 08.06.2026 and has remained in judicial custody since then. Prima facie, the conduct of the applicant reCects misuse of the concession of bail earlier granted to him, and the explanation sought to be o;ered for his prolonged non-appearance is a matter to be appreciated during the course of trial. It is also not disputed that the co-accused, who had likewise been enlarged on bail, has also remained absconding during the pendency of the trial. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conduct of the applicant in jumping bail and remaining unavailable for the trial disentitles him from claiming the discretionary relief of bail for the second time. In such circumstances, particularly keeping in view the previous misuse of the liberty granted by this Court and the likelihood of the applicant again evading the due process of law, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. 6 9. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Akash Kumar @ Master, involved in Crime No. 69/2020 registered at Police Station - Devendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), for the o;ence punishable under Section 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 10. Before parting, it is observed that since the co-accused, who was also enlarged on bail, is still absconding and his presence before the learned Trial Court has not been secured despite issuance of coercive process, the learned Trial Court is at liberty to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, including separation of the trial of the present applicant from that of the absconding co- accused, if not already done. 11. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certi1ed copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 12. OEce is directed to send a certi1ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan