1 CGHC010337222026 2026:CGHC:42112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8366 of 2026 1 - Pradeep S/o Omi Aged About 22 Years R/o Meera Saray, Gihar Basti, Badayu, P.S. Civil Badayu, Tahsil And District Badayu (U.P.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Police Station Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Non-applicant : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. AG Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 28.09.2026 1) This is the first 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. 83/2026 registered at Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and 281 of 2 BNS. 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of the information given by the informant, the Investigating Officer seized 67.380 kg. of Ganja in the presence of witnesses from the vehicle bearing registration No. OD-10-J-3344, which is stated to be owned by the applicant and his co-accused. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested in connection with the afore-stated offence. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the present applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. He would further submit that the contraband article, i.e., cannabis, was not seized from the actual and exclusive possession of the present applicant. He would contend that there is no material evidence available against the applicant connecting him with the commission of the crime. He would also contend that the alleged recovered cannabis is much less than commercial quantity. He would contend that the applicant is in jail since 29.07.2026; the charge-sheet has already been filed and the conclusion of trial may take some time, thus, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that 67.380 kg. of Ganja was seized from the possession of the applicant, which is of commercial quantity. She would contend that, in view of the statutory bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6) Having considered the quantity of contraband seized from the offending vehicle, the fact that said vehicle was allegedly being used for transportation of cannabis, and the memorandum of the co- accused stating that said vehicle had been sold to the present applicant and was in his possession, this Court finds that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. 7) It is a well-settled principle of law that while considering bail, the court's role is confined to verifying the existence of a prima facie case and the recovery of contraband article from exclusive possession of present applicants indicates their prima facie involvement in the illegal transit of ganja, therefore, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would squarely apply to the present case. 8) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am not inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha