1 CGHC010320192026 2026:CGHC:36795 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7626 of 2026 Surendra Kumar Rai S/o Sakaldeep Rai, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village - Ahiwara, Nandani Mines, Police Station - Ahiwara, District - Durg, (C.G.) (Particulars of The Applicant Is Mentioned Correctly) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Devbhog, District Gariyabandh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2026 1. This is the 8rst bail application 8led 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. 161/2026 registered at Police Station - Devbhog, District - Gariyabandh (C.G.) for the o<ence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.05.2026, during random checking of vehicles conducted by the Police Authorities in front of the Police Station, one person carrying a trolley bag was intercepted on ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.19 13:02:54 +0530 2 suspicion. The said person was coming from Dharamgad, Odisha, and was proceeding towards Devbhog. Upon search of the trolley bag, psychotropic substance, i.e., Ganja, weighing 6 Kg 30 grams, was allegedly seized from the possession of the present applicant. Accordingly, the present applicant was arrested, and the present crime was registered and investigation was commenced. After completion of the investigation, the Police Authorities 8led the charge-sheet for the o<ences mentioned in the application, and the applicant has been sent to judicial custody. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. He also submits that from the possession of the applicant intermediate quantity of Ganja was seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of Ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 Kgs and from the possession of the applicant 6.30 Kgs of Ganja was seized. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 23.05.2026, 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 counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been 8led in the present case before the competent Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the contraband article i.e. 6.30 Kgs of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is less than commercial quantity. Moreover, the present applicant has no criminal antecedents under NDPS Act, also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been 8led in the present case before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 23.05.2026, 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. Let the Applicant - Surendra Kumar Rai, involved in Crime No. 161/2026 registered at Police Station - Devbhog, District - Gariyabandh (C.G.) for the o<ence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, 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 8le an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 8xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in 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 8xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suCcient 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 4 under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date 8xed 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 8xed 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 suCcient 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. OCce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek