1 CGHC010320532026 2026:CGHC:36794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7629 of 2026 Amit Thakur S/o Lalit Singh Thakur Aged About 28 Years R/o Tikripara, Takhatpur, Police Station - Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O3cer, Police Station - Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2026 1. This is the Second bail application <led 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 o=ence under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The <rst bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 9465 of 2025 vide order dated 24.11.2025. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.09.2024, an informant ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.20 14:23:09 +0530 2 informed the police that a person named Amit Thakur, 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 looking for customers. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid at the spot. They found a man sitting inside the said white Swift car. He was made to step out of the vehicle and, upon being asked his name, he 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 trousers. Thereafter, upon searching the car, <fty (50) Rexogesic ampoules, packed in a black polythene bag and kept inside a pink cloth pouch hidden beneath the seat cover behind the driver’s seat, were seized. The memorandum statement of the accused Amit Thakur was recorded, wherein he allegedly disclosed that he had purchased the seized narcotic substances from Amit Thakur. Thereafter, the police of Police Station Takhatpur registered Crime No. 465/2024 for o=ences punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and arrested the accused persons. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that this is the second bail application <led on behalf of the applicant and that the <rst bail application was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 24.11.2025. He submits that co-accused Lalita Sagar has been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.02.2026. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He further submits that the other co-accused persons, namely, Anjali Gendle, Sanjiv Kumar Chhabda @ Suchcha Singh and Brijlal @ Bugala Kurre, have also been granted regular bail by 3 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 submitted that the principle of parity squarely applies in favour of the applicant and that the role attributed to the applicant is no greater than that of the aforesaid co-accused persons. Therefore, on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been <led before the competent Court. She further submits that, though co-accused Lalita Sagar has been granted bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the other co-accused persons, namely, Anjali Gendle, Sanjiv Kumar Chhabda @ Suchcha Singh and Brijlal @ Bugala Kurre have subsequently been granted regular bail by this Court on the ground of parity, the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the aforesaid co-accused persons. It is submitted that four (04) Rexogesic ampoules, wrapped in a Lux soap wrapper, were recovered from the left pocket of the applicant’s trousers. Thereafter, upon search of the car, <fty (50) additional Rexogesic ampoules were recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity. She further submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act pertaining to the year 2020, which indicates his involvement in similar o=ences and shows that he is a habitual o=ender. In view of the nature and quantity of the contraband recovered from the applicant and his criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled to the bene<t of parity and, therefore, his bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. It is further submitted by learned State Counsel that the co-accused, 4 namely, Brijlal @ Bugala Kurre, was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3628 of 2026, primarily on the ground that, although he had one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, he had already been acquitted in the said case. However, the said case is still pending before the learned trial Court, which indicates that the bail order was obtained by placing incorrect facts before the Court. It is, therefore, contended that the present applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused, particularly when the present applicant also has 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act. Hence, the prayer for bail deserves to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Upon consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary and other material available on record, it transpires that four (04) Rexogesic ampoules were allegedly recovered from the left pocket of the applicant’s trousers and, thereafter, upon search of the car, <fty (50) additional Rexogesic ampoules were recovered from his possession, which is stated to be much above the commercial quantity. Thus, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the present case. At this stage, this Court is not satis<ed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged o=ence or that he is not likely to commit any o=ence while on bail. 9. Though the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the case of the present applicant stands on a di=erent footing, particularly in view of the speci<c recovery attributed to him and his criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act pertaining to the year 2020. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim the 5 bene<t of parity with the co-accused persons. Moreover, the contention of learned State Counsel regarding incorrect disclosure of facts in the earlier bail order passed in favour of co-accused Brijlal @ Bugala Kurre also disentitles the applicant from claiming parity. Considering the nature and quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered from the applicant, his criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, and the statutory bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 10.Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Amit Thakur, involved in Crime No. 465/2024 registered at Police Station - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the o=ence under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 11.Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. O3ce is directed to send a certi<ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek