1 CGHC010343522026 2026:CGHC:40548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8666 of 2026  Faizan Ahmad S/o Md. Fariduddin Aged About 29 Years R/o Jhansi Rani Square Near Dewangan Grocery Shop, Ward No. 40, Kelabadi Durg, P.S. Padmanabhpur, Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Padmanabhpur, District- Durg, (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Purendra Khichariya, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.09 .2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 415/2025 registered at Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 22(b), 27(a) of NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 4558 of 2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2026. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.11.2025, upon receipt of secret information, Assistant Sub-Inspector Nagendra Banchhor SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.18 10:42:50 +0530 2 reached behind Manas Bhawan at Ravishankar Stadium, Durg, where 312 Proxyco Spas capsules containing Dicyclomine HCL, Tramadol and Acetaminophen were allegedly seized from the possession of the present applicant along with a silver-coloured mobile phone and a Suzuki motorcycle. In the same incident, Nitrosun-10 tablets containing Nitrazepam were also seized from co-accused Sahil Kumar Yadav. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 52-A(2) of the NDPS Act were conducted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, on 07.11.2025, wherein the inventory was prepared and samples were drawn. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act. On the basis of the said charge- sheet, the offence, as mentioned above, was registered against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case. This is the second bail application, first bail application was rejected on merits. He submits that the seizure witness namely Lokendra Kumar Dewangan has been examined before the learned Court below and he has not supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that till now, only one prosecution witness has been examined out of 34. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 03.11.2025, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. He submits that the quantity of Tramadol recovered from the 3 possession of the applicant is above the commercial quantity. He further submits that first bail application was rejected on merits. He further submits that there are three criminal antecedents against the present applicant, 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. 7. It is a well-settled principle of law that while considering a bail application, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or undertake a detailed examination of the evidence. The reliability and credibility of the witnesses are matters to be assessed by the learned Trial Court during the course of trial. 8. Having considered the fact that first bail application was dismissed on merits. Further the fact that the contraband article which has been seized is above the commercial quantity, the material collected during investigation prima facie indicating the involvement of the applicant in the illegal trafficking of contraband. Also, it is informed by learned counsel for the State that the applicant has three criminal antecedents, which have not been disclosed in the present bail application and 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. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant