1 CGHC010370652026 2026:CGHC:41325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8916 of 2026  Amit Thakur S/o Lalit Singh Thakur, Aged About 28 Years Tikripara, Takhatpur, Police Station -Takhatpur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Takhatpur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.09 .2026 1. This is the third bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 465/2024 registered at Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilapsur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 21, 22, 29 of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS. 2. Earlier, first bail application i.e. MCRC No. 9465 of 2025 was rejected on merits vide order dated 24.11.2025 and repeat bail application i.e. MCRC No. 7629 of 2026 was rejected on merits vide order dated 18.08.2026. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.09.2024, on receiving secret information that Amit Thakur was carrying illegal narcotic substances in a SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.24 13:34:59 +0530 2 white Swift car bearing registration No. CG-10 AN-1282, the police conducted a raid and seized 04 Rexogesic ampoules from his personal possession and 50 Rexogesic ampoules from the said car. The memorandum statement of the accused was recorded. Thereafter, the police registered the aforesaid offence and arrested the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the co-accused persons, namely Anjali Gendle, Sanjiv Kumar Chhabda @ Suchcha Singh, Brijlal @Bugala Kurre and Mahendra Sagar have been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC/7521/2025, MCRC/9229/2025, MCRC/3628/2026 and MCRC No. 7702/2026 vide orders dated 18.09.2025, 01.04.2026, 22.04.2026 and 19.08.2026, respectively. He further submits that co-accused Lalita Sagar has also granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 55180/2025 vide order dated 23.02.2026, and therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for benefit of parity. He would further submit that the alleged contraband was not seized from possession of the present applicant. He further submits that only two prosecution witnesses out of 30 have been examined and applicant is in jail since 15.09.2024 and conclusion of trial may take some time. He would pray for grant of bail to the present applicant on the ground of parity and delay in trial. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. He submits that the four (04) Rexogesic ampoules, wrapped in a Lux soap wrapper, were recovered from the left pocket of the applicant’s trouser. He further submits that upon search of the car, fifty (50) additional Rexogesic ampoules were recovered from the possession of the applicant, 3 which is much above the commercial quantity. He would further submit that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from co-accused persons who have been granted bail. He would submit that one of the co-accused, namely Lalita Sagar, was granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering her medical condition. He would contend that some co-accused were granted bail as they had no criminal antecedents, while others were granted bail as subsequently they acquitted in their previous antecedents. He would contend that within one month from date of rejection of earlier bail application, the instant application has been moved for grant of regular bail, whereas, same grounds were raised by the applicant on 18.08.2026 also. He also submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedents, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender therefore, instant application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of case diary would reveal that four Rexogesic ampoules were recovered from the left pocket of the trouser of the applicant and 50 additional Rexogesic ampoules were recovered from the car, which is much above the commercial quantity, thus, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would attract. The applicant is claiming benefit of parity on the ground that the co-accused persons have been granted bail, but the case of the present applicant is distinguishable. The bail was granted to co-accused Lalita Sagar by the Hon’ble Supreme Court looking to her medical condition, whereas some of the co-accused were granted bail as they had no criminal antecedents, while others were granted bail after they were acquitted in their 4 previous criminal cases. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity as a matter of right. 8. Further, earlier bail applications of the applicant were rejected on 24.11.2025 and 18.08.2026, no new ground has been raised in this third bail application. There is no change in circumstance and the material available on record prima facie indicates the involvement of the present applicant. At the stage of bail, the role of the Court is confined to verifying the existence of a prima facie case and not to undertaking a detailed appreciation of evidence. Considering the recovery of commercial quantity and the criminal antecedent of the applicant, the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied. 9. The applicant is in jail since 15.09.2024, though there is no progress in the trial but on that ground alone the applicant cannot be released on bail. With regard to ground of parity, the allegations against the present applicant and the co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail are different, therefore, I am not inclined to allow this application. 10. Accordingly, the third bail application is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant