1 CGHC010380642026 2026:CGHC:42357 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9155 of 2026 1. Diwakar Sahu, S/o Vidhyadhar Sahu, aged about 31 Years, R/o Village Mokha, Police Station Patnagarh, District Bolangir Odisha. 2. Naresh Sahu, S/o Murli Sahu, aged about 32 Years, R/o Village Moran, Police Station Patnagarh, District Bolangir Odisha ...Applicants versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Deputy Government Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. This MCRC has been preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNSS, 2023’), challenging the order dated 12.08.2026 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Raigarh, C.G., in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No.07/2023, whereby the application filed by Applicant No.1-Diwakar Sahu under Section 483 of the BNSS for his release on bail has been rejected and the application filed by Applicant No.2-Naresh Sahu under Section 72(2) read with Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for cancellation of the AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.09.29 16:56:37 +0530 2 arrest warrant issued against him has also been rejected and he has been sent to judicial custody. Both the applications have been rejected by the Special Judge vide impugned order dated 12.08.2026. As such, as on date, both the applicants are in judicial custody. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No.07/2023 is pending consideration before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Raigarh, C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Regular bail was granted to both the applicants by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2023 passed in MCRC No.1320/2023 (Annexure A-2). During the course of hearing, both the applicants remained absent before the Special Court on 15.07.2026. Consequently, the learned Special Court cancelled their bail bonds and issued arrest warrants against them. Thereafter, the applications referred to above were filed before the Special Court, which came to be rejected. Hence, the present MCRC has been filed by the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that after framing of the charge, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence on more than 15 occasions and on every date of hearing, the applicants were either present before the Special Court in person or were represented through their counsel. It is only on one occasion, i.e. on 15.07.2026, that neither of the applicants was present nor represented by their counsel, and consequently, arrest warrants were issued against them. He further submits that non-appearance of the applicants on 15.07.2026 was bona fide, as inadvertently, the other counsel for the applicants had noted the wrong date of hearing, i.e. 17.07.2026 instead of 15.07.2026, in his diary, and therefore, they could not appear before 3 the Special Court on 15.07.2026. He further submits that the non- appearance of both the applicants was bona fide. Hence, he prays that the applicants may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that on nine occasions, both the applicants did not remain present before the Special Court together. Sometimes one applicant was present and at other times, the other applicant was present. He further submits that on 15.07.2026, neither of the applicants was present before the Special Court, nor any application for condonation of their absence was filed on their behalf. Therefore, the Special Court ordered issuance of arrest warrants against them. Hence, he prays that the present MCRC may be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Applicants have filed complete copies of the order sheets of Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No.07/2023. Perusal of the said order sheets shows that sometimes both the applicants were present before the Special Court and sometimes one of them was present and an application for exemption from personal appearance was filed by their counsel. However, on only one date of hearing, i.e. 15.07.2026, both the applicants could not remain present before the Special Court. No application for exemption from personal appearance was filed by their counsel. The reason stated for their absence is said to be the wrong mentioning of the date of hearing by their counsel in his diary. Thus, the non-appearance of the applicants before the learned Special Court was only on one occasion, and the reason mentioned for such non- 4 appearance appears to be bona fide. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the present MCRC filed by the applicants. 7. Let the present applicants, namely, Diwakar Sahu and Naresh Sahu, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: (a) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court. (b) Applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. (c) Applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) Applicants and their sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar Cards along with a full-size coloured postcard photograph bearing the printed Aadhaar number, which shall be verified by the Trial Court. (e) Applicants shall not involve themselves in any offence of a similar nature in future. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Akhilesh