1 CGHC010327602026 2026:CGHC:38594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8037 of 2026 1. Sandeep Kesharwani S/o Suresh Prasad Kesharwani Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Pahadi, Near Bus Stand, Police Station Pahadi, District Chitrakoot (Karwi), Uttar Pradesh 2. Chandrika Uraon D/o Labho Uraon Aged About 24 Years R/o Medimeda, Police Station Jutmil, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Thana Urla, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 38/26 registered at Police Station - Urla, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 08.02.2026, the police authorities of Police Station Urla, District Raipur, allegedly received secret information ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.09.01 16:09:56 +0530 2 regarding the transportation of a narcotic substance. Acting upon the aforesaid information, the police party proceeded towards the place indicated in the information and allegedly intercepted the accused persons. According to the prosecution, during the aforesaid proceedings, the police apprehended the applicants along with the other co-accused persons and conducted the alleged search and seizure proceedings in accordance with the procedure adopted by the investigating agency. As per the allegations contained in the F.I.R., different quantities of alleged Ganja were recovered from different accused persons. The prosecution has attributed an alleged recovery of 5.014 kilograms of Ganja to Applicant No. 1, Sandeep Kesharwani, allegedly from a separate blue- black coloured bag/backpack. Similarly, an alleged recovery of approximately 5.082 kilograms of Ganja has been attributed to Applicant No. 2, Chandrika Uraon, allegedly from a separate bag. Thus, even according to the prosecution, the alleged recoveries attributed to the two applicants are distinct and separate. The prosecution has further alleged the recovery of different quantities of Ganja from the other co-accused persons and, by aggregating all such alleged recoveries, has shown the total quantity seized in the entire incident to be approximately 40.446 kilograms. On the basis of the aforesaid alleged seizure, the police registered Crime No. 38/2026 at Police Station Urla, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the applicants were arrested in connection therewith. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the alleged recoveries attributed to the applicants are separate and distinct, 5.014 kilograms from Applicant No. 1, Sandeep Kesharwani, and 3 approximately 5.082 kilograms from Applicant No. 2, Chandrika Uraon. He submits that the alleged recoveries made from the applicants cannot be mechanically clubbed with the recoveries allegedly made from the other co-accused persons in the absence of cogent material demonstrating their conscious and joint possession of the entire quantity. He also submits that the applicants are young, aged approximately 26 years and 24 years, respectively, and that their continued incarceration for an indefinite period, particularly before the conclusion of the trial, would cause serious prejudice to their personal liberty and future prospects. He submits that the learned trial Court has principally relied upon the aggregate quantity of 40.446 kilograms allegedly seized from all the accused persons, without properly appreciating the individual role and the alleged recovery attributed to each applicant. He also submits that the present applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 08.02.2026, conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicants on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He submits that, on 08.02.2026, acting on secret information regarding transportation and sale of Ganja, the police conducted a raid near Nauwa Talab, Bendri Road, and apprehended the applicant No. 1 Sandeep Kesharwani and co-accused - Rajesh Yadav, from whose possession a total of 15.223 kg of Ganja was allegedly recovered. Thereafter, on the basis of their memorandum statements, a further raid was conducted at the rented premises of co-accused Bhushan Sahu at Rajendra Nagar, Urla, where additional quantities of Ganja were allegedly recovered, including from the applicant No. 2, Chandrika Uraon, bringing the total quantity seized to 40.446 kg. He 4 further submits that the allegations indicate the applicant's involvement in an organized activity relating to the illegal transportation and sale of Ganja. Accordingly, the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the total quantity of 40.446 kg of Ganja allegedly seized in the present case, including the recovery allegedly made from the possession of the applicants, and the allegations indicating their involvement in an organized criminal activity, therefore, this Court is of the considered view, that the applicants in the present case are not entitled for grant of bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants - Sandeep Kesharwani and Chandrika Uraon involved in Crime No. 38/26 registered at Police Station - Urla, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 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 Abhishek