1 CGHC010335272026 2026:CGHC:38601 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8047 of 2026 Vinayak Tamrakar S/o Girja Shankar Tamrakar, Aged About 58 Years R/o Temer Para, Killa Mandir, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Pulgaon, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri 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 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 247/2026 registered at Police Station – Pulgaon, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 8, 18, 27(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 06.03.2026, the police received secret information regarding illegal cultivation of opium in agricultural land situated at Village Jhejhri, P.H.N. No. 00008, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 R.N.M. Jewra Sirsa, Tehsil and District Durg. Acting upon the said information, the police party, along with revenue, Excise, NCB and FSL/Scene of Crime officials, proceeded to the spot and allegedly found opium plants cultivated over an area of approximately five acres in Khasra Nos. 309 and 310. During the proceedings, co- accused Vikas Bishnoi was allegedly found present at the spot and was apprehended. It is further alleged that the aforesaid land belonged to Madhumati Tamrakar and Preetibala Tamrakar and was being used for agricultural purposes. Thereafter, memorandum statements of co-accused Vikas Bishnoi and the present applicant Vinayak Tamrakar were recorded, pursuant to which the prosecution alleges recovery of certain agricultural and electrical articles, CCTV-related equipment and documents from different premises/places. The prosecution has further alleged that the agricultural infrastructure, including the arrangements for water and electricity connected with the adjoining agricultural land, was being utilized in connection with the alleged cultivation of opium. On the basis of the aforesaid proceedings, Crime No. 247/2026 was registered at Police Station Pulgaon, District - Durg for offences punishable under Sections 8, 18, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no direct or independent material connecting him with the alleged cultivation of opium. It is submitted that the secret information dated 3 06.03.2026, which forms the genesis of the prosecution case, specifically attributed the cultivation and looking after of the alleged opium crop to co-accused Vikas Bishnoi, and the applicant was neither named as the cultivator nor identified as the person managing the alleged crop. It is further submitted that the alleged opium cultivation was found in Khasra Nos. 309 and 310, which, as per the contemporaneous revenue proceedings, stood in the names of Madhumati Tamrakar and Preetibala Tamrakar, and the applicant was not the recorded owner of the said land. He further submits that, at the time of the alleged raid, co-accused Vikas Bishnoi was found present at the spot and was apprehended, whereas the applicant was neither present at the alleged place of cultivation nor apprehended from the spot. It is also submitted that no narcotic substance was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the applicant and that the alleged opium crop was standing in the agricultural field, with no direct physical link having been established between the applicant and the alleged contraband. It is contended that the prosecution seeks to connect the applicant mainly on the basis of the alleged availability of water, electricity, pumps, sprinklers, CCTV equipment and other agricultural articles, which are ordinary agricultural resources and, in the absence of independent evidence showing conscious knowledge and intentional participation, cannot establish cultivation or possession of narcotic crops. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the memorandum statement of co-accused Vikas Bishnoi does not independently establish the 4 applicant’s involvement in the alleged cultivation and that there is no independent corroborative material showing any agreement, meeting of minds, financial transaction, bank trail, payment or transfer of funds so as to attract the provisions of Sections 29 and 27-A of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the alleged seizures of agricultural/electrical articles, bank passbooks/ documents and CCTV-related equipment do not constitute incriminating material connecting the applicant with the alleged cultivation, particularly when no narcotic substance was recovered from his conscious possession. He also points out the discrepancy in the applicant’s memorandum dated 10.03.2026, which bears the signature of the concerned police officer on 12.03.2026, for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 07.03.2026, the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed on 29.07.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood of his absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. He further submits that co- accused, namely, Sukharam Vishnoi and Madrupa Ram Vishnoi, have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 3846/2026 and 4560/2026 vide common order dated 31.07.2026, and therefore, on the ground of parity also, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court 5 and also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and relate to the illegal cultivation of opium over an area of approximately five acres, attracting the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is contended that the applicant cannot seek exoneration merely on the ground that he was not apprehended from the spot, as the prosecution has collected material during investigation indicating his involvement in the alleged cultivation through the agricultural arrangements, water and electricity facilities, pumps, sprinklers, CCTV equipment and other articles connected with the adjoining agricultural premises, as well as the memorandum and subsequent seizure proceedings. He further submits that the role attributed to the applicant is required to be appreciated on the basis of the entire material collected during investigation and not merely on the basis of his presence or absence at the spot. He also submtis that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent. Learned State Counsel, however, could not dispute the fact that co-accused, namely, Sukharam Vishnoi and Madrupa Ram Vishnoi, have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 3846/2026 and 4560/2026 vide common order dated 31.07.2026, but submits that the applicant’s case is required to be considered on the basis of the specific material and role attributed to him and, therefore, the benefit of parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Hence, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 6 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations and the material available on record, and the fact that the allegation against the applicant is that he was involved in the alleged illegal cultivation of opium on agricultural land situated at Khasra Nos. 309 and 310, however, the applicant was neither found present at the alleged place of cultivation nor apprehended from the spot, and the said land was recorded in the names of Madhumati Tamrakar and Preetibala Tamrakar. The applicant is sought to be connected with the alleged offence mainly on the basis of his adjoining agricultural land and the availability of certain agricultural facilities such as water, electricity, pumps and sprinklers, which, by themselves, do not establish his conscious possession or intentional participation in the alleged cultivation. No narcotic substance has been recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the applicant. Further, co-accused Sukharam Vishnoi and Madrupa Ram Vishnoi have already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 3846/2026 and 4560/2026 vide common order dated 31.07.2026. Further considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 07.03.2026, the investigation is complete and charge-sheet/final report has already been filed, he has only one criminal antecedent 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 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Vinayak Tamrakar, involved in Crime No. 247/2026 registered at Police Station – Pulgaon, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 8, 18, 27(A) and 29 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in 8 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 fixed 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 sufficient 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan