1 CGHC010301622026 2026:CGHC:36603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7597 of 2026 Ravi Matiyara S/o Late Rajesh Matiyara Aged About 34 Years R/o Sikola Basti, Near Nand Shop, Ward No. 16 P.S. Mohan Nagar Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House O4cer, Police Station - Mohan Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Arpit Parakh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.08.2026 1. This is the First bail application 8led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 626/2025 registered at Police Station – Mohan Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.), for the o<ence punishable under Sections 8, 22 and 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.11.2025, while conducting checking of vehicles and suspicious persons near Durg-Dhamdha Road, Police Station Mohan Nagar, the Police intercepted a vehicle bearing ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.18 16:11:03 +0530 2 registration No. CG-07-AT-5162, allegedly driven by the applicant. It is alleged that, during the search of the vehicle, a white plastic bag containing a medicine box was recovered from the dickey of the vehicle. Upon examination, the Police allegedly recovered 465 tablets of Alprazolam IP 0.5 mg and 232 capsules containing Tramadol Hydrochloride, in respect of which, according to the prosecution, the applicant could not produce any valid licence or document. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the investigation in the present case is complete, and the charge-sheet has already been 8led before the learned trial Court. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required, and his further detention serves no useful purpose. He also submits that the learned trial Court has proceeded on the assumption that the alleged recovery constitutes a substantial quantity of psychotropic substances, without undertaking any exercise to determine the actual quantity of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance allegedly recovered from the applicant. The impugned orders merely refer to the recovery of 465 Alprazolam tablets and 232 Tramadol capsules, without recording the actual weight of the psychotropic substances contained therein. He also submits that under the Noti8cation issued under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the quantities prescribed for “small quantity” and “commercial quantity” are expressed in terms of the weight of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and not merely by the number of tablets or capsules recovered. In the absence of any material demonstrating the actual quantity of Alprazolam and Tramadol contained in the alleged recovered tablets and capsules, and the prosecution having failed to prima facie establish the actual quantity of the 3 psychotropic substances allegedly recovered from the applicant, the continued incarceration of the applicant is wholly unjusti8ed, particularly when the investigation stands concluded and the charge-sheet has already been 8led. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 19.11.2025. Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant was found involved in transporting the contraband articles, i.e. 465 Alprazolam tablets and 232 Tramadol capsules, without having any valid licence or authority for possession or transportation thereof. He further submits that the applicant has failed to o<er any satisfactory explanation regarding his possession of the said contraband articles. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the allegations that the applicant was found transporting 465 Alprazolam tablets and 232 Tramadol capsules without any valid licence or authority, coupled with the fact that he has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding possession of the said contraband articles, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ravi Matiyara, involved in Crime No. 626/2025 registered at Police Station – Mohan Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.), for the o<ence punishable under Sections 8, 22 and 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 4 1985 and Section 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. O4ce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek