1 CGHC010320472026 2026:CGHC:37158 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7702 of 2026 Mahendra Sagar S/o Raju Sagar Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Badrathakur Police Station - Pathariya District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Takhatpur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant :Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Ms. Palak Dwivedi, P.L. HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER ON BOARD 19.08.2026 1. This is the 2nd bail application filed 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. 465/2024 registered at Police Station – Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 21, SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2026.08.20 10:58:46 +0530 2 22, 29 of NDPS Act. 2. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 17.06.2026 passed in MCRC No. 5225 of 2026. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.09.2024, the police received information from an informant that one Amit Thakur, a resident of Tikrapara, Takhatpur, was roaming on Pandariya Road in a white Swift car bearing registration No. CG-10 AN-1282, carrying illegal narcotic substances for sale and searching for potential customers. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid at the indicated spot and found a person sitting inside the aforesaid vehicle. He was asked to step out of the car and, upon inquiry, disclosed his name as Amit Thakur. During his personal search, four (04) Rexogesic ampoules wrapped in a Lux soap wrapper were recovered from the left pocket of his pant. Thereafter, a search of the vehicle was conducted, during which fifty (50) Rexogesic ampoules, packed in a black polythene bag and kept inside a pink cloth pouch concealed beneath the seat cover behind the driver's seat, were recovered and seized. The memorandum statement of accused Amit Thakur was subsequently recorded, wherein he disclosed that he had purchased the seized narcotic 3 substances from Mahendra Sagar, pursuant to the said disclosure, 300 Rexogesic ampoules containing Buprenorphine (2 ml each) were allegedly recovered and seized from the conscious possession of the applicant/accused. The record further reveals that the applicant/accused is alleged to be the main supplier of the contraband substance and that commercial quantity of the narcotic drug was recovered from his conscious possession. Therefore, the police of Police Station Takhatpur registered Crime No. 465/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and arrested the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that, out of 30 prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined, the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, and the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that one of the co-accused, namely Lalita Sagar, whose bail application was earlier rejected by this Court, was subsequently granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.02.2026 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 55180/2025. He further submits that other co- accused persons, namely Anjali Gendle, Sanjeev Kumar Chhabda and Brijlal @ Bugala Kurre, have also been granted 4 bail by this Court in MCRC No. 7521/2025, MCRC No. 9229/2025 and MCRC No. 3628/2026, vide orders dated 18.09.2025, 01.04.2026 and 22.04.2026, respectively. It is contended that the alleged implication of the applicant is solely based on the memorandum statement of co-accused Amit Thakur, recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that, except for such disclosure statement, there is no legally admissible material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. No contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant, nor was he apprehended at the spot. It is further submitted that the memorandum statement of a co-accused is a weak piece of evidence and cannot, by itself, constitute substantive evidence against the applicant. Learned counsel submits that the principle of parity squarely applies in favour of the applicant, inasmuch as all similarly situated co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, whereas the applicant continues to remain in custody. It is argued that the role attributed to the applicant is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused who have been granted bail and, therefore, denial of bail to the applicant would amount to hostile discrimination. It is further submitted that the applicant has remained in custody for a considerable period, only 2 out of 5 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. There is also no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that a commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered in the present case and the allegations against the applicant are grave in nature. It is further submitted that the applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused persons who have been granted bail. He points out that co-accused Lalita Sagar was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court primarily on account of her being a woman suffering from serious gynecological ailments and also because no contraband article was recovered from her possession. Likewise, co-accused Anjali Gendle and Sanjeev Kumar Chhabda were granted bail as no recovery of contraband was effected from them and their implication was based only upon memorandum statements. In contrast, pursuant to the memorandum statement recorded during investigation, 300 Rexogesic ampoules containing Buprenorphine, which constitute commercial quantity, were allegedly recovered and seized from the conscious 6 possession of the present applicant, who is stated to be the main supplier of the contraband substance. It is therefore contended that the role attributed to the applicant is distinct and more serious than that of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail and, consequently, the principle of parity is not applicable. Considering the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned State counsel prays for rejection of the bail application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, the period of pre- trial detention, the fact that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents, and the fact that the co-accused persons, namely Anjali Gendle, Dharmendra Gendle, Sanjeev Kumar Chhabda and Brijlal @ Bugala Kurre, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time to conclude, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7 7. Let Applicant- Mahendra Sagar involved in Crime No. 465/2024 registered at Police Station – Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 21, 22, 29 of NDPS Act be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 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 applicant 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 applicant is 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 him in accordance with law. 8 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Saurabh