1 CGHC010262402026 2026:CGHC:37439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6286 of 2026 1 - Rahul Prahlad Kannauje S/o Prahlad Kannauje Aged About 24 Years R/o Vithal Nagar 01, Ring Road Ayodhya Nagars Nagpur Maharashtra 2 - Jai Devrao Parate S/o Devrao Parate Aged About 18 Years R/o Hanuman Mandir Pola Maidan New Mangalwari Dr. Ambedkar Marg Nagpur Maharashtra (Wrongly Mentioned As R/o Ward No 1 Hudkeshwar Road Vitthal Nagar Nayodhya Nagar Thana Hudkeshwar District- Nagpur Maharashtra In (F I R) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station Singhoda District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Shri Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Shubham Bajpai, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20/08/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.08.21 19:01:59 +0530 2 to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.41/2026 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(b)(II)(B) of the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the concerned police station received secret information through the informant that on the date of incident, unknown persons have kept contraband ganja illegally in their motorcycle to sale and police has seized 05 kg. from place of incident at open place near NH 53 road village Rehatikhol and as a result thereof, police has registered offence publishable under section 20(b) (II) (B) of the N.D.P.S. Act against the applicants. Hence the bail application. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime. The prosecution has not complied with the mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act and the concerned police station did not take proper investigation before lodging FIR against the applicants and the applicants have falsely been implicated in connection with alleged offences as alleged by the prosecution against them. The applicants have neither committed alleged offence nor have been involved in this case and wrongly been arrested by the police. The applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. The applicants are in jail since 21.4.2026. Therefore, the applicants may be released on bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that applicant No.1 has one criminal antecedent under the Gambling Act, and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants. 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, and the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicants, applicant No.1 has one criminal antecedent under the Gambling Act, the applicants are in jail since 21.4.2026, further considering the quantity of contraband seized from possession of the applicants which is less than commercial quantity, and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicant – Rahul Prahlad Kannauje & Jai Devrao Parate, involved in Crime No.41/2026 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(b)(II)(B) of the NDPS Act, be released on bail on each of them furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the 4 effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse 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 fixed 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 applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed 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 5 applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve