1 CGHC010315182026 2026:CGHC:36824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7641 of 2026 Durgesh Kumar Yadav S/o Satruhan Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Chuhiya Nawagaon, P. S. Dhamdha, District Durg C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House O(cer, Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai. C. G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2026 1. This is the 1rst bail application 1led 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. 08/2026 registered at Police Station - Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the o8ence 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 Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), received a secret information from the informant and on the said RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 information police conducted a raid and seized contraband article i.e. total 6.015 kgs of Ganja from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, o8ence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered against present applicant. 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. 6.015 kgs of Ganja was not seized from the possession of the present applicant. 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 Excise Act 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 08.06.2026 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 1led in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. She further submits that from the possession of the present applicant total 6.015 kgs of Ganja was seized. She also submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents out of which one case is under the Excise Act and another one is under the IPC. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for 3 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 possession of the present applicant is less than commercial quantity and also considering the fact that in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been 1led before the competent Court, the applicant has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, he has two previous criminal antecedents, out of which one case is under the Excise Act in which he has already been acquitted and another one is under the IPC which is pending, and he is in jail since 08.06.2026 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 – Durgesh Kumar Yadav, involved in Crime No. 08/2026 registered at Police Station - Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the o8ence 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 1le an undertaking to the e8ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 1xed 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 1xed, 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 1xed 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 1xed 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. 8. O(ce 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