1 CGHC010291022026 2026:CGHC:34177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7102 of 2026 Sahjad @ Rinku S/o - Amiruddin Aged About 30 Years R/o - Kabirstan Mohalla, Surajpur, P.S. And Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Excise O5cer, Police Station - Divisional Flying Squad Division Sarguja, District- Sarguja, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. This is the =rst bail application =led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 182/2026 registered at Police Station – Divisional Flying Squad Division Sarguja, District – Sarguja (C.G.), for the oAence punishable under Section 22 (C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.03.2026, the Assistant District Excise O5cer of the Divisional Flying Squad, Division Surguja, received secret information that near Tilsiwan School Ground, a person working as a Peon in the Collectorate O5ce, Surajpur, was selling psychotropic ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.06 12:15:38 +0530 2 substances from a car bearing registration No. C.G.29 AG/1098. Pursuant to the said information, a raid was conducted and the said person, namely Abhishek Kumar Sahu, was intercepted and searched. During the search, 560 tablets of Alprazolam 0.5 mg (Alpracad 0.5) and 48 capsules of Spasmo-Plus were seized from the said car and were alleged to be in the constructive possession of co-accused Abhishek Kumar Sahu. Thereafter, he was arrested for the oAence punishable under Section 22(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Subsequently, on the basis of his memorandum statement, the present applicant/accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been =led against the present applicant under Sections 22(C) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied with in this case. He submits that the applicant has been in jail since 11.04.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been =led before the competent Court. She further submits that the contraband recovered from the present applicant, namely 560 tablets of Alprazolam 0.5 mg (Alpracad 0.5) and 48 capsules of Spasmo-Plus, is of commercial quantity. She also submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, which indicates that he is a habitual oAender. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the recovery of 560 tablets of Alprazolam 0.5 mg (Alpracad 0.5) and 48 capsules of Spasmo-Plus from the possession of the present applicant, which is of commercial quantity, moreover, the fact that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual oAender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a =t case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sahjad @ Rinku, involved in Crime No. 182/2026 registered at Police Station – Divisional Flying Squad Division Sarguja, District – Sarguja (C.G.), for the oAence punishable under Section 22 (C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. O5ce 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