1 CGHC010381922026 2026:CGHC:42284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9195 of 2026 1 - Virendra Singh @ Veer Singh S/o Angad Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Korra, Police Station Sariya Distt- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ...Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jutemill, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 29.09.2026 1) This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 212/2025, registered at Police Station Jutemill, Raigarh (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b) & 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and 111 of BNS. Earlier first bail application of the applicant bearing MCRC 2 No.10511 of 2025 was rejected on merits vide order dated 21.01.2026. 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.06.2025, Police Station Jutmill, District Raigarh, seized 40.172 kg of ganja from a Swift car and 64.818 kg of ganja from a Grand Vitara car, which were being illegally transported for sale. The accused were arrested, the vehicles and four mobile phones were seized, and the present applicant was arrested on the basis of the memorandum statements. Hence, the present bail application. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would further submit that no seizure was made from the possession of the applicant and the Forensic GPS Camera Report creates serious doubt regarding the time and place of search. It is further contended that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits in MCRC No. 10511 of 2025, and the applicant is in jail since 11.06.2025. He would submit that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted and the conclusion of the trial may take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the present applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that 40 kg of ganja was seized from the vehicle in which the present applicant was travelling. He would further submit that the applicant has two criminal antecedents, including one under the NDPS Act. He would contend that, in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case 3 diary. 6) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that 40 kg of ganja was seized from the vehicle in which the applicant was travelling, his two criminal antecedents, including one under the NDPS Act, and further considering the nature and quantity of the contraband involved, this Court finds that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence or that he is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be released on regular bail. 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 applicant 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