1 CGHC010364542026 2026:CGHC:41326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8913 of 2026  Shankar Sagar S/o Subhash Sagar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Phapsi Post - Gandapatrapali, District - Balangir (Odisha) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through - In Charge Police Station - Komakhan, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.09 .2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 17/2026 registered at Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of NDPS Act. 2. Earlier, first bail application i.e. MCRC No. 7592 of 2026 was rejected on merits vide order dated 17.08.2026. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.), received secret information from an informant. On the basis of the said information, the police seized 25 Kgs. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.24 11:47:23 +0530 2 of Ganja from the possession of the co-accused. The name of the applicant was disclosed in the memorandum statement of the co-accused. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested by the police and registered aforesaid offence against him. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the alleged contraband article i.e. 25 kgs of ganja was not seized from the exclusive possession of the present applicant, but from the possession of the co- accused, and the name of the applicant has been disclosed in the memorandum statement of the co-accused. He further submits that the memorandum statement of the co-accused cannot be made the sole basis for arrest of the present applicant and is not admissible in evidence. It is further submitted that the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act has not been followed by the police. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 24.04.2026, and conclusion of the trial may take some time. He would contend that till now single witness has not been examined by the prosecution, 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 and submits that the quantity of contraband article i.e. 25 Kgs of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the co-accused person, which is much above the commercial quantity. She further submits that police investigation has revealed the involvement of the present applicant and the provisions of the NDPS Act have been complied with during the course of 3 investigation, and thus, instant application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It appears that 25 Kgs. of Ganja was seized from the possession of the co- accused and the name of the present applicant has been disclosed in the memorandum statement of the co-accused. The contention that the contraband was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant cannot be considered in isolation from the other material collected during investigation at this stage. The contention with regard to admissibility of the memorandum statement and non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act are matters which require consideration during the course of trial. 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 8. Having considered the fact that first bail application was rejected 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 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