1 CGHC010310662026 2026:CGHC:36571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7502 of 2026 Nabil Khan S/o Mahmood Ali Khan Aged About 36 Years R/o 1222, Phoolghadi, Near Madarsa Phoolghadi, Hapur, Thana Hapur Dehaat, District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O)cer, Police Station Tongpal, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.08.2026 1. This is the second bail application 4led under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station - Tongpal, District Sukma, (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 554/2026. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station - Nagarnar, District- Bastar (C.G.), received a secret information from the informant and on the said information police conducted a raid and seized 122.370 Kgs of Ganja from the joint possession of the present applicant and the co-accused namely Mohammad Hasim. Thereafter, o=ence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered against present applicant and co-accused. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that this is the second bail application of the applicant and the 4rst bail application was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 554 of 2026 on 13.02.2026. He would also submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the alleged transportation of contraband Ganja. It is submitted that the applicant was merely working as a daily-wage driver under co- accused Mohammad Hasim for a remuneration of Rs.1,000/- per day and was driving the vehicle in the ordinary course of his employment. The said fact has been speci4cally a)rmed by co- accused Mohammad Hasim through his a)davit, 4led with the permission of the learned Trial Court, as well as by Rizwan, the registered owner of vehicle No. U.P.37 Z 2636, who has also stated that the vehicle had been given to co-accused Mohammad Hasim and that the applicant was engaged as a daily-wage driver, without any knowledge of the alleged transportation of Ganja. It is further submitted that out of 16 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses 3 have already been examined before the learned trial Court and one witness namely, Rizwan, who has been examined as PW-3, has supported the applicant’s case and stated that co-accused Mohammad Hasim was using the vehicle as a taxi and that the applicant was working merely as its driver, without knowledge of the alleged contraband. He further submits that PW-1 Maniram Yadav and PW-2 Ravi Kumar Manjhi, who were independent witnesses to the police proceedings, have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. It is also submitted that the applicant is a student pursuing his graduation and, due to his incarceration, is unable to attend his college. He also submits that the applicant’s earlier bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was rejected by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), South Bastar, Dantewada, vide order dated 13.11.2025, thereafter, this Court also dismissed his bail application vide order dated 13.02.2026. The applicant thereafter approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by 4ling SLP (Crl.) No.8552/2026, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.05.2026. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 30.07.2025 and the charge-sheet has already been 4led before the competent Court. He further submits that the alleged seizure has been falsely prepared to implicate the applicant and that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act have not been duly complied with. There is no criminal antecedent against the applicant and no material establishing that he had knowledge of or participated in the alleged transportation of contraband. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present case involves recovery of 122.370 kilograms of Ganja, which is a commercial quantity, allegedly seized from the joint possession of the applicant and co- accused Mohammad Hasim, and therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. It is further submitted that the applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), South Bastar, Dantewada, vide order dated 13.11.2025, thereafter by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2026, and the applicant’s SLP (Crl.) No.8552/2026 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.05.2026. She further submits that no substantial change in circumstances has been demonstrated so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer for second bail and that the grounds raised by the applicant pertain to the merits of the case, which are matters for trial. Therefore, considering the huge commercial quantity of contraband involved and the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the present second bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record, and further the fact that the prosecution case involves seizure of 122.370 kilograms of Ganja, which is admittedly a commercial quantity, allegedly recovered from 5 the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Mohammad Hasim, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The applicant’s earlier bail application was considered and rejected on merits by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), South Bastar, Dantewada, vide order dated 13.11.2025, and thereafter, this Court also rejected the applicant’s bail application vide order dated 13.02.2026. The applicant thereafter approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by 4ling SLP (Crl.) No.8552/2026, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.05.2026. Thus, the present application is a second bail application and no substantial change in circumstances has been demonstrated which would justify taking a di=erent view from the earlier orders. It is further relevant that the trial has already commenced and prosecution witnesses have been examined, and therefore, the grounds now urged by the applicant, including the alleged statements of the vehicle owner and the role attributed to him as a driver, are matters which can appropriately be appreciated during the course of trial. The ground raised in this second bail application is that the applicant has been in jail since 30.07.2025 and out of 16 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have already been examined before the learned trial Court. 8. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Vigin K. Varghese (Special Leave Petition (Cri.) Nos.7768 of 2025 and 11097 of 2025) decided on 13.11.2025 has observed that in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for bail. 6 9. Considering the fact that the 4rst bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court, the commercial quantity of contraband involved, the nature and gravity of the o=ence, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing the SLP as withdrawn, and the absence of any material change in circumstances, further the trial is in progress and also in the light of observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vigin K. Varghese (supra) that in NDPS commercial-quantity cases, long incarceration cannot, by itself, be a ground for bail, therefore I do not 4nd any good ground to entertain this second bail application. 10. 10. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant- Nabil Khan, involved in Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station - Tongpal, District Sukma, (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 11. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certi4ed copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 12. O)ce is directed to send a certi4ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan