2026:CGHC:15581 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3046 of 2026 Irfan Sa Diwan S/o Ismail Sa Diwan Aged About 32 Years R/o Vill. Bhobha Tekaro, Borsad, District - Anand, Gujrat ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Urla Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Chanchal Verma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.58/2025, registered at Police Station : Urla Raipur, District - Raipur(C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 20 (B) & 27(A) of the NDPS Act 1985. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant in MCRC No. 8902 of 2025, was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025, with liberty to file afresh. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.07 10:52:16 +0530 3. As per the prosecution story, on the basis of secret information received from the guard, namely, Rajesh Singh, it was revealed that the driver of the truck bearing Registration No. GJ-01-JT-4272, which had come for loading goods from Real Ispat Company, was carrying 40.545 kgs of ganja concealed in four packets kept beneath the toolbox of the truck. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a search and allegedly recovered the contraband from the truck. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the present applicant, who was subsequently arrested in connection with the said offence. However, the applicant has denied all the allegations levelled against him. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application is the second bail application. He further submits that the applicant is merely employed as a driver in a private company, and at the time of checking, the owner of the vehicle fled from the spot, whereafter the police falsely implicated the present applicant in the case. It is further submitted that the applicant has been wrongly arraigned as an accused as there was no conscious possession of the alleged contraband on his part. Being only the driver of the vehicle, the applicant had no knowledge or mens rea regarding the alleged ganja kept in the vehicle. There is no material available on record to establish conscious possession, which is a mandatory requirement under the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that the applicant is neither the owner of the vehicle nor of the alleged contraband, and no material has been brought on record to show that he had any ownership, control, or connection with the seized ganja. No contraband was recovered from the personal search of the applicant, and the entire recovery is alleged to have been made from the vehicle and not from the conscious possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of being the driver of the vehicle, without any independent evidence connecting him to the alleged offence, and that the present case is a routine implication merely to show seizure success. It is also contended that there has been non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 42 and 50. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has not been involved in any similar offence in the past. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that, on the basis of secret information received from Rajesh Singh, the police intercepted the truck bearing Registration No. GJ-01-JT-4272, which had come for loading goods from Real Ispat Company, and recovered 40.545 kgs of ganja concealed in four packets beneath the toolbox of the truck. She further submits that the present applicant was the driver of the said vehicle and was found in conscious possession of the contraband article. Therefore, considering the quantity of ganja seized and the serious nature of the allegations, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted bail in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the applicant, and the fact that this is the second bail application, the earlier bail application filed by the applicant in MCRC No. 8902 of 2025 having been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025, and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, coupled with the fact that a huge quantity of contraband article, i.e., 40.545 kgs of ganja, has been seized from the possession of the applicant, and further noting that the applicant has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the alleged contraband article seized from his possession, this Court is of the prima facie view that the recovery of such a substantial quantity indicates the involvement of the present applicant in the illicit trafficking of narcotic substances, which constitutes a serious offence under the NDPS Act. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present second bail application. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant – Irfan Sa Diwan, involved in Crime No.58/2025, registered at Police Station : Urla Raipur, District - Raipur(C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 20 (B) & 27(A) of the NDPS Act 1985 (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of Six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. 11. The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, is directed to ensure that the prosecution witnesses appear before the concerned trial Court, against whom bailable warrants have been issued. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh through the learned State counsel for information and necessary action forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav