1 CGHC010342492026 2026:CGHC:41166 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8305 of 2026  Vinay Sharma Alias Pandit Ji S/o Shri Santosh Sharma Aged About 50 Years Gram Kurmali, P.S. Babri, Distt. Shamli, State Uttar Pradesh ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Parakh, Advocate For Non-applicant : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy.A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 22.09.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.197/2026, registered at Police Station Basna, District : Mahasamund( C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act and Sections 336(2), 338 and 340 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2 2) Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on the basis of information given by the informer, police of Police Station Basna intercepted a TATA EICHER vehicle bearing registration No. AP 39 TT 4556, which was being driven by one Naeen. Upon intercepting the vehicle, search was conducted wherein 912.760 kg of Ganja was seized. During the course of investigation, Naeem was interrogated wherein he implicated three other persons including the present applicant. Thereafter, present applicant was arrested in connection with the afore-stated offence. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that afore-stated quantity of Ganja has not been seized from the possession of the present applicant and he has been implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused person. She further submits that submits that applicant has 04 criminal antecedents and all such antecedents have been duly explained in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the present bail application. She also submits that applicant is in jail since 17.06.2026 and conclusion of trial is likely to take time, therefore instant bail application may kindly be allowed. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submits that contraband article i.e. 912.760 Kg of Ganja was seized from the co-accused, who has implicated the present applicant in the 3 present case, therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) It appears that contraband article i.e. 912.760 kg of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the co-accused, which is well above the commercial quantity. The co-accused persons have stated that the afore-stated contraband was being supplied to the present applicant, which indicates his prima facie involvement in the illegal transit and distribution 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. 7) Having considered the fact that the contraband seized is much above the commercial quantity, the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons collected during investigation prima facie indicates involvement of the applicant 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 application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.23 14:15:49 +0530