1 2026:CGHC:1218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 108 of 2026 Javed Khan S/o Sheikh Ismile Khan Aged About 26 Years R/o Sarsivan, P.S. Sarsiwa, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For Res./State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 08.01.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. As the case diary is available, with the consent of the parties the matter heard finally. 4. This is third bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant who is in custody in connection with Crime No. 351 of 2022 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for 2 the offence punishable under Section 20(B) and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 5. Case of the prosecution in short is that on 17.07.2022, the police officials of Police Station: Basna, have seized total 9 kg of contraband Ganja from the vehicle bearing Registration No. C.G.- 22 AB 0292 and the said Ganja has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. On that basis the said offence was registered. The applicant was arrested on 18.07.2022. The applicant is facing trial in Special Criminal case No. 41 of 2022 before the Special Judge (NDPS Act) Saraipali. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court vide its order dated 27.09.2022 passed in MCRC No. 8020 of 2022, granted bail to the applicant and another co-accused in the case. This Court also put certain conditions on the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was regularly appearing before learned trial Court i.e. Special Judge (NDPS) Saraipali, Chhattisgarh, however one or two occasion he could not appear before the learned trial Court and thus a non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant and thereafter, he surrendered and has been sent back to judicial custody. Thereafter the applicant filed an applicant for grant of bail before the learned trial Court which was earlier rejected vide order dated 26.08.2025 by the learned trial Court. Then the applicant filed a second bail application for grant of bail before this Court bearing MCRC No. 7508 of 2025. This Court vide order dated 18.09.2025, rejected the bail application however liberty was reserved in favour of the applicant to repeat his prayer for grant of bail in case the trial is not concluded within three months. He submit that more than three months have passed away but the trial has not been concluded, therefore, this third bail application has been filed. He further submits as per his instructions only four witnesses have been examined out of 13 witnesses projected in the chargesheet and the trial is likely to take some time. He further submits that the applicant shall comply any of the conditions which may be imposed by this Court and would regularly appear before the learned trial Court and would not cause any undue delay in completion of the trial, therefore, he may be released on bail. 3 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant misused the liberty granted to him and failed to appear before the trial Court on couple of occasions, thus, he does not require any indulgence from this Court and his application deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 9. Taking into consideration the submissions made at the bar and also considering the fact that earlier the applicant was granted bail by this Court in the month of September, 2022 and he was regularly appearing however, failed to appear in couple of occasions and this Court while rejecting his second bail application also reserved liberty in his favour to repeat his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded. The trial is not concluded as submitted by learned counsel for the parties, therefore, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application. 10. Accordingly, the third bail application filed by applicant is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer: (ii) that the applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; (iii) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial; (iv) that applicant will not involve himself in any offence of similar nature.” 11. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court will decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any observation 4 made hereinabove. It is also made clear that the trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail application of the applicant in the event of applicant involving himself in similar offence in future. 12. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.01.08 18:09:04 +0530