1 CGHC010327512026 2026:CGHC:38134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7933 of 2026 Bijendra Kumar S/o Shri Satveer Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Dhandi, Bhaloth, P.S. Pacheri, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O1cer, Police Station Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Satish Surya, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. This is the 9rst bail application 9led under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 41/2025 registered at Police Station- Sukma, District- Sukma (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.06.2025, on the basis of secret information received by the Police Station City Kotwali, Sukma, a search was conducted near Kumharras Check KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Post, Sukma, where the applicant Bijendra Kumar along with co- accused persons was found carrying bags containing contraband. During search, two packets of contraband suspected to be ganja weighing 9.950 kilograms were allegedly recovered from the possession of the present applicant along with a Samsung keypad mobile phone. From the possession of the other co-accused persons also, contraband ganja was recovered and in all, 24.600 kilograms of ganja was seized. Consequently, the applicant and other co-accused persons were arrested and a case was registered for the o=ence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the memorandum and seizure witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with by the prosecution agency. He further submits that nothing has been seized from the exclusive possession of the present applicant and the allegation of his accompanying the other accused persons is baseless. It is also submitted that there is a violation of Noti9cation issued under Standing Order 1/89 with regard to sampling of the seized material and that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not su1cient, prima facie, to establish the alleged o=ence against the applicant. The applicant 3 has been in judicial custody since 11.06.2025, the charge-sheet has already been 9led and there are total 19 prosecution witnesses, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time. However, one criminal antecedent of the applicant registered under the NDPS Act in the year 2022 at Haryana, which is still pending, has been disclosed and explained in Part-D of the bail application. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant, opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, a commercial quantity of contraband ganja has been seized and 9.950 kilograms of ganja was speci9cally recovered from the possession of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has one criminal antecedent of similar nature under the NDPS Act, registered in the year 2022 at Haryana, which is still pending and therefore, the applicant appears to be a habitual o=ender and is not entitled to the bene9t of bail. Learned State counsel further submits that two co-accused persons, namely Vijay Biswas and Nitin Raghav, have already been denied bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 2637/2026 and M.Cr.C. No. 8642/2025 vide orders dated 23.03.2026 and 31.10.2025 respectively. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the o=ence, the quantity of contraband seized and the criminal antecedent of the applicant, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and 4 perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the o=ence levelled against the applicant and the fact that above commercial quantity of contraband ganja has been seized in the present case and 9.950 kilograms of ganja is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the present applicant and further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been 9led before the competent Court and the applicant has a criminal antecedent of similar nature under the NDPS Act registered in the year 2022 at Haryana, which is still pending and has been disclosed and explained in Part-D of the bail application, and also considering the fact that two co-accused persons namely Vijay Biswas and Nitin Raghav have already been denied bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 2637/2026 and M.Cr.C. No. 8642/2025 vide orders dated 23.03.2026 and 31.10.2025 respectively as such, the present applicant is a habitual o=ender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. 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 9t case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Bijendra Kumar, involved in Crime 5 No. 41/2025 registered at Police Station- Sukma, District- Sukma (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act , is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. O1ce is directed to provide a certi9ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal