1 CGHC010276642026 2026:CGHC:38184 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6756 of 2026 Manoj Singh Rathore S/o Gorelal Aged About 36 Years R/o Laharpur Police Station Jatahari District - Anuppur (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Komakhan District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Najmi Begam, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. This is the 1rst bail application 1led 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. 71/2026 registered at Police Station – Komakhan, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the o9ence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station - Komakhan, District - Mahasamund (C.G.), received a secret information from the informant and on the said information police RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 conducted a raid and seized contraband article i.e. total 9.60 kgs of Ganja amounting of Rs. 4,53,000/- from the joint possession of the present applicant and co-accused. Thereafter, o9ence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered against present applicant and co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submits that the contraband article i.e. 9.60 kgs of Ganja was not seized from the joint possession of the present applicant and co-accused. She also submits that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. She further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, he has only one case under the IPC which is pending. She also submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and he is in jail since 10.05.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been 1led in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. She further submits that from the joint possession of the present applicant along with co-accused total 9.60 kgs of Ganja amounting of Rs. 4,53,000/- was seized. She also submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents under the IPC. 3 Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the said contraband Ganja which was recovered form the joint possession of the present applicant and co-accused is less than commercial quantity and also considering the fact that in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been 1led before the competent Court, the applicant has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, he has two case under the IPC which are pending, and he is in jail since 10.05.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Manoj Singh Rathore, involved in Crime No. 71/2026 registered at Police Station – Komakhan, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the o9ence under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 1le an undertaking to the e9ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 1xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. 4 (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date 1xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suBcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date 1xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 1xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without suBcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OBce is directed to send a certi1ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan