1 CGHC010342762026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8375 of 2026 Mohanpur Yadav S/o Makardhavaj Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Isharbahal, P. S. Suhal, District- Bargarh (Odisa). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Pandari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pramod Kumar Navratna, Advocate For Non-Applicant / State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 64/2026 registered at Police Station Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.03.2026, acting upon secret informer information, the police team of Police Station Pandri intercepted a white Swift Dzire car bearing registration No. OD-15-AA- 2 0680 near Urkura Road, Sun City, Daldal Seoni. The applicant along with four co-accused persons, namely Kirtan Kharsel, Pradeep Jain, Akash Shinde, and Gayatri Kalet, was found seated inside the vehicle. Upon conducting a search of the car's trunk, two plastic bags containing illegal contraband (Ganja) weighing 20.032 kg and 22.452 kg, Total 42.482 kg were recovered and seized. The applicant along with the co- accused persons was arrested from the spot on 22.03.2026. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would contend that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has been in judicial custody since 22.03.2026, and the contraband was allegedly seized from the trunk of the vehicle and not from his exclusive personal possession. He would argue that the vehicle belongs to the co-accused; thus, he would pray that the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by counsel for the applicant and submit that the seized quantity of Ganja is 42.482 kg, which exceeds the commercial quantity and the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would attract in this case. He would contend that the applicant was apprehended directly from the spot inside the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered. He would further submit that looking to the gravity of the offence, the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. It is an admitted fact that the contraband seized from the vehicle involved in the present case is 42.482 kg of Ganja, which constitutes a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Consequently, the mandatory statutory restrictions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are directly attracted. Under these provisions, bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing 3 that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 7. Taking into consideration the recovery of contraband ganja of commercial quantity, the presence of applicant at the spot inside the vehicle, and the nature of the allegations, this Court cannot record a finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. The mere absence of prior criminal antecedents or the period of custody i.e. since 22.03.2026 does not suffice to override or dilute the statutory rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court finds no merit or sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS is hereby rejected. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim