1 CGHC010335192026 2026:CGHC:38577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8014 of 2026 Panna Lal Verma S/o S/o Bisram Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o- Village Parteva, Post Devri, Police Station And Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattsgarh Through Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate appeared through video conferencing. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01/08/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during vehicle checking on the date of the incident, the police noticed a Maruti Ciaz bearing registration No. CG-04-PV-0112 attempting to turn and, upon surrounding the vehicle, found co-accused Lakeshwar Yadav driving the same. On questioning, he allegedly disclosed that Ganja was being transported in the vehicle, pursuant to which a search was conducted and 30 KGs of Ganja was allegedly recovered from the trunk of the car. It is further alleged that, in his memorandum statement recorded after arrest, co-accused Lakeshwar Yadav stated that he and the present applicant were transporting the contraband at the instance of co-accused Praveen Malviya, the owner of the vehicle, and that the applicant had alighted near the border for reconnaissance, while Lakeshwar Yadav followed him in the vehicle. He also allegedly disclosed that the contraband had been purchased from co-accused Mama alias Barda Bagarti. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in jail since 16.02.2026. He further submits that no contraband was seized from the applicant, nor was he found accompanying co-accused Lakeshwar Yadav at the time of the alleged recovery. The 3 applicant has merely been implicated on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused. It is further submitted that the allegation that the car was following the applicant, who was allegedly walking for several kilometres, appears highly improbable. Moreover, the memorandum statement does not mention the time of the alleged occurrence, rendering its contents doubtful. He also submits that as per the FIR (Annexure A-2), the vehicle allegedly arrived at 14:20 hours on 06.01.2026, whereas the recovery memo indicates that the alleged contraband had already been recovered prior to the arrival of the vehicle. This apparent discrepancy in the prosecution documents casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the alleged recovery and the prosecution story, the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant in collusion with co-accused, Lakeshwar Yadav, was allegedly transporting 30 KGs of Ganja, which is above the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act, in a Maruti Ciaz at the instance of co-accused Praveen Malviya, and that he had alighted from the vehicle near the border for reconnaissance before the alleged recovery. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that 30 KGs of Ganja, which is above the commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act, was recovered from the trunk of the Maruti Ciaz bearing registration No. CG-04-PV-0112, which was being driven by co-accused Lakeshwar Yadav, and in his memorandum statement, he has specifically implicated the present applicant, Panna Lal Verma by stating that both of them were transporting the contraband at the instance of co-accused, Praveen Malviya, owner of the said vehicle, and that the applicant had alighted from the vehicle near the border for reconnaissance. Though no contraband has been seized directly from the possession of the applicant and he was not apprehended along with the vehicle at the time of recovery, the allegation against him cannot, at this stage, be completely brushed aside, particularly in view of the specific role attributed to him in the memorandum statement and the substantial quantity of contraband allegedly recovered. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered, the specific allegation against the applicant and the material collected during investigation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. 5 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Panna Lal Verma, involved in Crime No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 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 Akhil