1 CGHC010369632026 2026:CGHC:42816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8837 of 2026 1 - Tarun Ratre S/o Mithlesh Ratre Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, P.S. Mujgahan, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mujgahan, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Gauvav Patel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.10.2026 1) This is the first bail application filed under under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.82 of 2026 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. NIRMALA RAO 2 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station Ambikapur received secret information from an informant and, acting upon the said information, conducted a raid and seized 2.10 kg of contraband Ganja from the possession of the applicant. Thereafter, the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that, though there are 10 criminal antecedents against the present applicant, one of them was registered under the NDPS Act in the year 2019, wherein 1.470 gm of prohibited tablets were found in the exclusive possession of the present applicant, and in the said case, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. He would further submit that the remaining 9 criminal cases were registered under the Gambling Act between the years 2015 and 2022, and most of the cases have already been disposed of. He would also submit that, in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in jail since 14.4.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that 2.10 kg of Ganja was seized from the possession of the present applicant; therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that 2.10 kg of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is less than the commercial quantity, and further considering that there are 10 criminal antecedents against the present applicant, out of which one was registered under the NDPS Act in the year 2019, wherein 1.470 gm of prohibited tablets were found in the exclusive possession of the present applicant, and in the said case, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, while the remaining 9 criminal cases were registered under the Gambling Act between the years 2015 and 2022 and most of the said cases have already been disposed of; and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in jail since 14.4.2026, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (b) he 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 fact to the Court; and (c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. 4 The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi