1 CGHC010338612026 2026:CGHC:38847 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8131 of 2026 Raju Sahu S/o Salikram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kudhurtal Police Station Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, District – Mungeli (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Third Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with Crime No.79/2025, registered at Police Station – Lormi, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. Earlier the first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 07.05.2026 and 17.06.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 4289/2026 and 5271/2026. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that the Police of Police Station – Lormi, District – Mungeli (C.G.) has received a secret information through the informant and on the basis of the said information, the Police authority has seized a total of 86.250 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 the case was registered by the Police. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that so far as the status of the trial is concerned, out of 16 prosecution witnesses, only 3 have been examined by the trial Court. It is further submitted that the co-accused Santosh Kumar Lahare has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.2804/2026. The applicant is in jail since 15.02.2025. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the aforesaid co-accused Santosh Kumar Lahare has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.2804/2026 on the ground that no such seizure of contraband article was made from his possession, but a total of 86.250 Kgs of Ganja has been seized from the possession of the present applicant, and the same is much above the commercial quantity, and on the same ground the first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 07.05.2026 and 17.06.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 4289/2026 and 5271/2026. Hence, this bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the ground made by the the applicant that till date out of 16 prosecution witnesses, only 3 have been examined by the trial Court, the same cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail 3 as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the aforesaid co-accused Santosh Kumar Lahare has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2026 passed in MCRC No.2804/2026 on the ground that no such seizure of contraband article was made from his possession, but a total of 86.250 Kgs of Ganja has been seized from the possession of the present applicant, and the same is much above the commercial quantity, and on the same ground the first and second bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 07.05.2026 and 17.06.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 4289/2026 and 5271/2026, hence, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case is enlarge the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the instant third bail application of applicant – Raju Sahu, involved in Crime No.79/2025, registered at Police Station – Lormi, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, is rejected at this stage. 10. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 11. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar