1 CGHC010319622026 2026:CGHC:36792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7633 of 2026 Sadharam Nagvanshi S/o Tangani Nagvanshi Aged About 60 Years R/o Naveen Gatgaon P.S. Lailunga, Distt- Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O,cer, (S.H.O.) P.S. Lailunga, Distt- Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2026 1. This is the First 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. 94/2026 registered at Police Station – Lailunga, District – Raigarh (C.G.), for the o;ence punishable under Sections 8(B) and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 23.03.2026, the police o,cials of Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.), received secret information that the applicant, Sadharam Nagvanshi, aged about 60 years, resident of Navin Ghatgaon, was illegally cultivating opium plants in his agricultural 5eld situated at Village Navin Ghatgaon. Pursuant to the said information, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.19 15:59:34 +0530 2 the police reached the spot and, after completing the requisite legal formalities, conducted a search of the agricultural 5eld of the applicant. During the search, approximately 600 opium plants, weighing about 43 kg, were allegedly found and seized from the possession of the applicant. In addition, opium straw material and dried stems were also allegedly recovered from the premises. The seized contraband was taken into possession in accordance with law, and samples were prepared for examination. On the basis of the alleged recovery, the applicant was arrested on 23.03.2026, and an o;ence under Section 8(b) read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, vide Crime No. 94/2026. The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 23.03.2026 and is presently in custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has not committed the alleged o;ence, and the allegations levelled by the prosecution are matters to be tested during the course of trial. He also submits that the alleged agricultural land on which the prosecution alleges that the opium/poppy crop was cultivated does not stand in the name of the present applicant. The investigating agency has failed to strictly comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act, as well as the rules governing search and sampling, thereby vitiating the prosecution case. He submits that the disputed land is recorded in the name of a person other than the applicant. Therefore, the mere presence or alleged possession of the applicant at the spot, by itself, does not establish his ownership, conscious possession or exclusive control over the alleged crop. The question as to who was in actual possession and control of the land and who, if at all, cultivated the alleged crop is a matter requiring evidence 3 and adjudication during trial. Hence, the applicant cannot be denied bail merely on the basis of the alleged recovery from land which is not recorded in his name. He submits that as per the prosecution itself, approximately 600 alleged opium/poppy plants, weighing about 43 kg, were seized. The prosecution has also alleged the recovery of dried poppy straw and dried stems. The nature, identity and actual narcotic content of the seized material are matters to be established during the course of trial through admissible evidence and scienti5c examination. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 25.03.2026 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, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application 5led on behalf of the applicant and submits that the alleged contraband, i.e., 600 opium plants weighing approximately 43 kg, was recovered and seized from the possession of the applicant. In addition, opium straw material and dried stems were also allegedly recovered from the premises of the applicant. It is further submitted that the quantity of the contraband recovered is much above the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular 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, the nature and gravity of the o;ence, and the allegation that 600 opium plants weighing approximately 43 kg were recovered and seized from the possession of the applicant, along with opium straw material and dried stems from the premises. The quantity of the alleged contraband is stated to be much 4 above the prescribed commercial quantity. The applicant has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding the said recovery. At this stage, it cannot be said that this is a case of false implication. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sadharam Nagvanshi, involved in Crime No. 94/2026 registered at Police Station – Lailunga, District – Raigarh (C.G.), for the o;ence punishable under Sections 8(B) and 18 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 certi5ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek