1 CGHC010360222026 2026:CGHC:40353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8594 of 2026 Dasi Badanayak S/o Nabina Badnayak Aged About 36 Years R/o District Koraput Odisha ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, P.S. Bodhghat, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board 16.09.2026 1. This is the Second 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.114/2025 registered at Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Hence, this bail application. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No.2599/2026 vide order KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 dated 24.04.2026 on merits, considering the recovery of 21.350 Kgs of illegal narcotic substance (Ganja), which is much above the commercial quantity, and the material available against the applicant. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of information received from the informant, Assistant Sub-Inspector Dinesh Usendi of Police Station Bodhghat, a search was conducted and a total quantity of 21.350 Kgs of illegal narcotic substance (Ganja) was recovered from a sack found in the possession of the applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity. Accordingly, the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He would further submit that there is a material change in circumstances, as the independent seizure witnesses, namely PW-1 Vicky Kashyap and PW-2 Arun Srivastava, have been examined before the learned trial Court and both have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is further submitted that both the witnesses have stated that they had signed the papers at the police station upon the instructions of the police and had not witnessed the weighment, sealing or identification proceedings at the spot. Learned counsel would also submit that the applicant is in custody since 10.03.2025 and out of 13 cited prosecution witnesses only 2 witnesses have been examined and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Accordingly, he prays for grant of regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for 3 grant of bail and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and a commercial quantity of 21.350 Kgs of Ganja has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He would further submit that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 24.04.2026 and the material circumstances considered therein continue to exist. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.04.2026, this Court is of the view that the examination of PW-1 Vicky Kashyap and PW-2 Arun Srivastava and their having been declared hostile, by itself, does not constitute such a substantial change in circumstances as would warrant reconsideration of the prayer for bail. At the stage of considering bail, a Court cannot test the reliability or credibility of a prosecution witness, as such evaluation is strictly reserved for the final trial. Further, considering the statutory bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. The ground of prolonged incarceration and the likely delay in conclusion of trial, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, also does not 4 outweigh the aforesaid considerations. 8. Consequently, this Second Bail Application of applicant – Dasi Badanayak, involved in Crime No.114/2025 registered at Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Hence, this bail application, is rejected. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Kunal