1 2026:CGHC:15105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2862 of 2026 Harsh Rathi @ Laddu S/o Rajendra Rathi , Aged About 25 Years R/o House No. 561 Mig Near Hirapur Bengali Hotel, Police Station Kabir Nagar, District- Raipur (Chhattigarh) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Thana Kabir Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.04.2026 1. This is the First bail application 6led 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. 183/2025 registered at Police Station Kabir Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the o;ence punishable under Sections 21(B) and 21(C), 29, 27(A) of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 21.08.2025, the police of Kabir Nagar Police Station, District Raipur, on receiving secret KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 information, conducted a raid in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. At the spot near Vedant Vatika, Heerapur, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kabir Nagar, Raipur, co-accused Manmohan @ Jaggu was found sitting on a black motorcycle without a registration number. From the pocket of the lower worn by him, 05 plastic packets containing illegal narcotic substance, namely heroin (chitta), were recovered. From the said co-accused, out of the said 05 packets, heroin/chitta weighing respectively 1.10 grams, 1.30 grams, 22.93 grams, 1.30 grams and 1.44 grams (including polythene), totaling 28.16 grams was seized. During investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Manmohan @ Jaggu, 105.33 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from his house, 47.49 grams from the possession of co-accused Divya Jain, 77.60 grams from co-accused Vijay Motwani and 13.09 grams from co-accused Nitin Patel. In this manner, a total of 271.67 grams of heroin/chitta was seized from the accused persons. Further, during investigation on 23.08.2025, upon receiving information regarding co-accused Harpreet Kaur @ Happy, a raid was conducted at Veer Savarkar Nagar, House No. LIG 251, 252, and 9.43 grams of heroin/chitta was seized from the dickey of her Activa vehicle. During further investigation, upon re- interrogation of co-accused Manmohan Singh @ Jaggu, he disclosed that he had given a pistol and two cartridges to the present applicant/accused Harsh Rathi and that the applicant had invested money for the purchase and sale of heroin/chitta. Thereafter, the applicant/accused Harsh Rathi was interrogated and 3 his memorandum statement was recorded, wherein he denied taking any pistol and cartridges from co-accused-Manmohan Singh but admitted that he had made online monetary transactions with Manmohan Singh for the purpose of purchase and sale of heroin/chitta. After completion of the above proceedings, an o;ence under Section 21-B of the NDPS Act was registered and upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been 6led before the competent court. Therefore, the aforesaid o;ences were registered against the accused persons, including the present applicant/accused Harsh Rathi, for their active involvement in possession, distribution and 6nancial transactions relating to illegal narcotic substances. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of false, baseless and malicious allegations, without any active role or knowledge of the alleged contraband. It is contended that no recovery, either conscious or physical, has been made from the applicant at any stage of investigation and all alleged seizures have been e;ected from co-accused persons, thus the essential ingredient of “possession” under the NDPS Act is completely absent. The implication of the applicant is solely based on memorandum statements of co-accused, which have no substantive evidentiary value in absence of independent corroboration or any recovery pursuant thereto. It is further submitted that although the prosecution seeks to invoke the rigours of Section 37 on the ground 4 of commercial quantity, however, each seizure is separate and independent and only by combining the same it reaches commercial quantity, which cannot be attributed to the present applicant. The charges under Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act have been mechanically imposed without any material to show 6nancing, money trail, conspiracy, or prior meeting of minds, as no documentary or electronic evidence connects the applicant with the alleged o;ence. He further speci6cally argued that the allegation against the applicant is based merely on transfer of small amounts from his bank account to a co-accused, however, in reality, such transactions were made towards marriage-related expenses of co- accused Manmohan Singh, whose marriage was held on 04.07.2025, though no marriage card has been annexed to substantiate the said contention. It is further submitted that investigation is complete, charge-sheet has been 6led and no further custodial interrogation is required, therefore continued detention would serve no purpose. The applicant is in custody since 30.12.2025 and being the sole male member of his family, his prolonged incarceration would violate his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that similarly situated co-accused namely Jaspreet Kaur @ Bobby has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2539/2026 vide order dated 18.03.2026, therefore, on the ground of parity also, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant is a habitual 5 o;ender, having four previous criminal antecedents registered under the BNSS Act, out of which though three cases have been explained by the applicant, one criminal antecedent remains unexplained in para 4(A) of the bail application, which itself reFects his criminal propensity and disentitles him from the discretionary relief of bail. It is further contended that the quantity of contraband i.e. heroin/chitta recovered during the course of investigation from the joint possession of co-accused persons involved in the present case, is much above the commercial quantity, and therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are squarely attracted in the present case. Learned State counsel further submits that the defence taken by the applicant that the monetary transactions were related to marriage expenses of co-accused Manmohan Singh is wholly false, concocted and an afterthought and cannot be accepted in absence of any cogent material or documentary proof. On the contrary, the investigation clearly reveals that the said 6nancial transactions were made for the purpose of purchase and sale of contraband substances, thereby establishing the active involvement of the applicant in the illegal narcotics trade. It is also argued that the present case is not an isolated act but forms part of an organized criminal network engaged in traGcking of narcotic substances and the manner in which the o;ence has been committed reFects a well-planned and coordinated operation among the accused persons. Thus, considering the gravity of the o;ence, involvement of the applicant in organized narcotic traGcking, applicability of stringent provisions of the NDPS Act and his criminal 6 antecedents, she prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as bail application with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the o;ence levelled against the present applicant, as well as the material collected during the course of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. It is apparent that the contraband seized in the present case falls within commercial quantity, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Further, as pointed out by the learned State counsel, the applicant has four criminal antecedents, out of which one remains unexplained, thus prima facie indicating that he is a habitual o;ender. So far as the ground raised by the learned counsel for the applicant regarding parity with co-accused Jaspreet Kaur @ Bobby is concerned, this Court 6nds that the said co-accused was granted bail on entirely di;erent footing, as she was the wife of the main accused and her bank account was allegedly misused by the main accused for transferring money, whereas the role attributed to the present applicant is distinct and more serious. During the course of investigation, co-accused Manmohan Singh @ Jaggu, in his memorandum statement, speci6cally disclosed that he had supplied a pistol and two cartridges to the present applicant and that the applicant had invested money for the purpose of purchase and sale of heroin/chitta. Further, in his own memorandum statement, the present applicant has admitted that he had entered into monetary transactions with the co-accused for the purpose of dealing in 7 contraband, though he denied receiving the pistol and cartridges. The defence raised by the applicant that the money transferred was towards marriage expenses of co-accused Manmohan Singh also does not inspire con6dence. 7. On a pointed query being made by this Court to the learned counsel for the applicant regarding the marriage card or any supporting document of the alleged marriage for which the amount was transferred, the counsel failed to furnish or explain the same, thereby rendering the said defence unsubstantiated and doubtful. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the speci6c role attributed to the applicant, his involvement in 6nancial transactions relating to narcotic trade, the seriousness of allegations, as well as his criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application 6led by the present applicant stands rejected. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. OGce is directed to send a certi6ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal