1 CGHC010305862026 2026:CGHC:34777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7229 of 2026 Nandlal Yadav S/o Pitamber Yadav Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Sihardhar, Police Station - Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O/cer, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2026 1. This is the Second bail application 5led 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. 58/2025 registered at Police Station - Lailunga, District - Raigarh (C.G.) for the o:ence under Section 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The 5rst bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 8257 of 2026 vide order dated 17.11.2025. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.07 16:24:16 +0530 2 3. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on the basis of secret information received from an informant, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Station Lailunga, namely Chandansingh, along with other police personnel, conducted a raid at the house of Keshav Yadav in Village Sonajori on 08.03.2025 and allegedly recovered 11 kilograms of cannabis from the possession of Keshav Yadav and another 11 kilograms of cannabis from the possession of Natthu @ Ludro Yadav. Accordingly, an FIR bearing Crime No. 58/2025 was registered against Keshav Yadav and Natthu @ Ludro Yadav. During the course of the investigation, the memorandum statements of Keshav Yadav and Natthu @ Ludro Yadav were recorded, and thereafter, the present applicant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application. The 5rst bail application 5led by the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8257 of 2025. He further submits that, thereafter, the applicant preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 18956 of 2026 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2026. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Murli Yadav, preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 11713 of 2026 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was allowed vide order dated 28.07.2026. While granting bail, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, taking into consideration the period of custody undergone by the petitioner, the progress of the trial (only 3 out of 31 prosecution witnesses having been examined), and the fact that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, he deserved to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing as that of the aforesaid co-accused. As on date, only 5 out of 31 prosecution witnesses have been examined, the 3 applicant has no criminal antecedents, and he has been in judicial custody since 26.03.2025. Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposed the bail application of the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the fact that the co-accused, namely, Murli Yadav, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.07.2026, the fact that the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing, the progress of the trial, wherein only 5 out of 31 prosecution witnesses have been examined, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in judicial custody since 26.03.2025, and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant - Nandlal Yadav, involved in Crime No. 58/2025 registered at Police Station - Lailunga, District - Raigarh (C.G.) for the o:ence under Section 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 5le an undertaking to the e:ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 5xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In 4 casedefault 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 5xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su/cient 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 5xed 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 5xed 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 su/cient 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. 9. O/ce is directed to send a certi5ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek