1 CGHC010322962026 2026:CGHC:40768 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7722 of 2026  Rakesh Laxman Lanjewar Son Of Laxman Lanjewar, Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Ranibhosle Nagar, Solankibadi, Nagpur, Police Station Shankardhara, District- Nagpur (Maharastra) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Police Station Komakhan, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate For State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.09 .2026 1. This is the first 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. 22/2026 registered at Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20 (B) (II) (C) and 29 of the NDPS Act 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.02.2026, the police received secret information that ganja was being transported in a white- coloured Bolero bearing registration No. OD-08-P-0321 and that two Swift Dzire vehicles were accompanying the said vehicle as pilot and 2 follow vehicles. Thereafter, the police intercepted all three vehicles near Komakhan Railway Crossing. Gajendra Kumar and Bablu Manjhi were in the Bolero vehicle, Akshay Waghade and Ayush Rahangdale were in the pilot vehicle, and Akshay @ Michael Rangari & the present applicant were in the follow vehicle. As per the prosecution, 40 kilograms of ganja, contained in two plastic bags of 20 kilograms each, was recovered from rear seat of the Bolero vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. He further submits that though ganja recovered is above the commercial quantity, but the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not an absolute prohibition against grant of bail. It is argued that the Court is required to examine the conditions contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He also submits that mere presence in the follow vehicle does not establish involvement under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, particularly when the alleged contraband was recovered from the Bolero vehicle. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has only one criminal antecedents under the Motor Vehicle Act and he is in jail since 09.02.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the bail application. He submits that the presence of applicant in the follow vehicle indicates his prima facie involvement in the offence. With 3 regard to the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he submits that contraband article i.e. 40kgs, which is much above the commercial quantity. He further submits that the issues with regard to compliance of Section 42 and the applicability of Section 29 of the NDPS Act are matters for trial, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of case diary would make it clear that 40 kgs. of ganja, which is above commercial quantity, was recovered from the Bolero vehicle and the present applicant was travelling in the follow vehicle along with said vehicle, which indicates his prima facie involvement in the transportation of ganja, therefore, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would squarely apply to the present case. Further, 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 submission with regard to non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act requires consideration on the basis of evidence and cannot be decided at this stage. Likewise, the applicability of Sections 29 of the NDPS Act is also a matter to be considered during trial. 7. Having considered the fact that the contraband seized from applicant is much above the commercial quantity, the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates involvement in the present case. Further considering the allegations leveled against the present applicant, I am not inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the instant bail 4 application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant