1 CGHC010354132026 2026:CGHC:40173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8538 of 2026  Bhagwan Sethi S/o Shri Shyam Sethi Aged About 26 Years R/o Narla P.S. Narla, Distt- Kalahandi (Odisha) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, Distt- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.09 .2026 1. This is the third 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. 656/2025 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3157 of 2026. The second bail application of the applicant was also rejected on merits vide order dated 16.07.2026 passed in MCRC No. 6353 of 2026. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.09.2025, acting upon a SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.15 17:59:15 +0530 2 credible secret information received by the police to the effect that two persons were present behind Satguru Kabir Ashram, New Bus Stand, in possession of ganja kept in white-coloured sacks and were attempting to sell the same to prospective customers, the police party proceeded to the spot and apprehended the said persons. Upon being questioned, they failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding their presence and possession of the sacks. After complying with the requisite legal formalities, the police conducted a search of the sacks, during which 6.500 kilograms of ganja was allegedly recovered and seized. Consequently, the co-accused persons were arrested and a crime was registered. During the course of investigation, memorandum statements of the co-accused persons were recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, wherein co-accused Gurucharan allegedly disclosed the name of the present applicant. On the basis of the said disclosure statement, the present applicant was implicated in the case with the allegation that he had supplied the seized ganja to co-accused Gurucharan, who thereafter sold the same to other persons. Accordingly, the present applicant was arrested on 02.11.2025 by the police of Police Station Ambikapur and has remained in judicial custody since then. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. This is the third bail application, earlier two bail application were rejected on merits. He submits that at present, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 11 and the applicant is in jail since 02.11.2025. He further submits that the name of the applicant does not find place either in the FIR or 3 in the seizure proceedings and that his implication in the present case is based solely on the disclosure statement made by the co-accused. It is argued that co-accused namely, Gurucharan Yadav and Ashutosh Sharma have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 10113 of 2025 and MCRC No. 984 of 2026 vide order dated 23.02.2026. He also submits that charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and conclusion of the trial may take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the present applicant. He would further submit that there is no change in circumstances and thus, the application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that this is the third bail application. The two bail applications of the present applicant were rejected on merits and further no new ground has been raised in this third bail application. There is no change in circumstance and further considering the allegations leveled against the present applicant, I am not inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the instant application for the grant of bail is rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court should make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant