1 CGHC010267462026 2026:CGHC:34156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7155 of 2026 Anil Chaudhari S/o Birbal Chaudhari Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Madauli, Police Station Sevar District Bharatpur Rajasthan, ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House, Officer, Police Station Chilfi District Kabirdham C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 12/2024 registered at Police Station Chilfi District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.02.2024 at about 9:40 P.M., the police of Police Station Chilphi, District Kabirdham (C.G.), intercepted a TATA 1109 truck bearing registration No. AP- 31-TD-3618 near the Excise Check Post on NH-30. Upon search of the vehicle, the police allegedly recovered 10 quintals 48 kilograms and 920 grams of ganja, concealed among bags of pigeon pea husk (arhar chhilka bhusa) loaded in the rear portion of the truck. It is alleged that the present applicant, along with a co-accused, was transporting the contraband illegally. Consequently, an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was registered against the applicant, and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession and that he has been falsely shown as the driver/cleaner of the Tata 1109 truck. According to the applicant, he has no nexus with the alleged offence and has been implicated due to the non-fulfilment of an illegal demand of Rs.25,000 allegedly made by the police. He further submits that the 3 mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 42, 50 and 52-A, were not complied with. The applicant submits that the secret information was not reduced into writing, the search and seizure were conducted in violation of the prescribed procedure, and the inventory, weighing and photography of the seized contraband were carried out after an unexplained delay of seven days. It is also pointed out that there was a material discrepancy in the weight of the seized contraband, rendering the prosecution case doubtful. He also submits that during the course of trial, the seizure witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. They neither identified the applicant nor supported the alleged recovery and seizure of the contraband in their presence. On these grounds, it is contended that the prosecution case is doubtful and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. He later submits that the bail application of co-accused, namely, Atendra Jaat has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2026 in MCRC No.10364 of 2025, against which the said co-accused preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8217/2026 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.05.2026. The applicant is in jail since 15.02.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been 4 filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant along with the co-accused, was illegally transporting 10 quintals 48 kilograms and 920 grams of ganja, which is much above the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act, concealed in a TATA 1109 truck bearing registration No. AP-31-TD-3618, thereby committed the alleged offence and is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it prima facie appears that the applicant was apprehended while allegedly transporting 10 quintals 48 kilograms and 920 grams of ganja, which is much above the prescribed commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The contraband was allegedly concealed in 41 bags beneath bags of pigeon pea husk (arhar chhilka bhusa) loaded in a TATA 1109 truck, which was being driven by the present applicant, thereby prima facie indicating his involvement in the illicit trafficking of narcotic substances in concert with the co-accused persons. The quantity of contraband involved attracts the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Furthermore, the bail application of co-accused, namely, Atendra Jaat has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2026 in MCRC No.10364 of 2025, against which the said co-accused preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 5 No.8217/2026 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.05.2026. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the enormous quantity of contraband allegedly seized, the statutory embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Anil Chaudhari, involved in Crime No. 12/2024 registered at Police Station Chilfi District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil