1 CGHC010301602026 2026:CGHC:34780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7227 of 2026 Santosh Yadav S/o Dharamjeet Yadav Aged About 27 Years Occupation Private Job, -R/o Village Takiya Ward No. 10, Police Station Ambikapur District Surguja C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Divisional Fiying Squad Excise (Sambhagiya Udandasta), Division Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No.166/2026, registered at Police Station- Divisional Fiying Squad Excise (Sambhagiya Udandasta), Division Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.07 16:24:15 +0530 2 the NDPS Act). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.01.2026, the applicant, along with co-accused Brajesh, was allegedly found in conscious and joint possession of 33 (thirty-three) ampoules of Rexogesic Buprenorphine Injection IP, 2 ml each, having a total volume of 66 ml. The seized contraband was taken into possession in accordance with the seizure proceedings and was thereafter forwarded for chemical examination. The prosecution has relied upon Entry Sr. No. 169 of the Central Government Notification issued under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, wherein the commercial quantity for Buprenorphine has been prescribed as more than 20 grams. Proceeding on the premise that the quantity allegedly recovered from the applicant falls within the category of commercial quantity, the learned Special Court held that the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was attracted and that the twin conditions prescribed therein were not satisfied at the present stage. Consequently, the application for regular bail preferred by the applicant came to be rejected, against which the present bail application has been filed on the following grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery is doubtful and has been falsely planted, and no independent witness has supported 3 the prosecution case in a reliable manner. Learned counsel contends that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 07.01.2026, has already undergone substantial incarceration, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is further argued that the alleged recovery of 33 ampoules of Rexogesic Buprenorphine Injection IP, 2 ml each, is well within the exemption contemplated under the first proviso to Rule 66(2) of the NDPS Rules, 1985, which permits possession of up to 100 dosage units of Buprenorphine for personal use, and therefore such possession, by itself, does not attract the rigours of the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that under Notification S.O. 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001, the commercial quantity for Buprenorphine is prescribed as more than 20 grams, whereas the actual psychotropic content in the alleged seized 33 ampoules is only about 0.0198 grams, which is far below the notified commercial quantity. On these premises, it is argued that the embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted, and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that, the applicant and co-accused Brajesh were found in joint possession of 33 ampoules of Rexogesic Buprenorphine Injection IP (2 ml each), totaling 66 ml. It is contended that the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the applicant’s involvement in the offence. Learned State counsel further submitted that the seized psychotropic substance is above 4 the commercial quantity prescribed under the relevant Central Government Notification and, therefore, the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. It is argued that, at this stage, the Court cannot record a finding that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Hence, considering the nature of the offence, the quantity allegedly recovered, and the material available on record, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that prima facie, 33 ampoules of Rexogesic Buprenorphine Injection IP, 2 ml each, aggregating to 66 ml, were allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and the co-accused. At this stage, the recovered substance is alleged by the prosecution to be above the commercial quantity, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In such a situation, considering the nature and quantity of the seized narcotic substance, it would not be justified to grant bail to the applicant/accused. 7. Therefore, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Santosh Yadav involved in Crime No.166/2026, registered at Police Station- Divisional Flying Squad Excise (Sambhagiya Udandasta), Division Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the 5 offence punishable under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act), is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek