1 CGHC010386892026 2026:CGHC:42679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9248 of 2026 Umesh Yadav S/o Shobhit Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Silkor, P.S. Jaynagar District Madhbani (Bihar) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station Kumhari District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 01.10.2026 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. 172/2025 registered at Police Station – Kumhari, District Durg, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)ii (C), SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.10.01 18:06:32 +0530 2 25 and 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.09.2025, acting upon a secret information received from CSP, Chhawani, Kumhari, the Police intercepted container truck No. NL01 AH 9524 near Kumhari Toll Plaza on NH-53, suspecting illegal transportation of Ganja. Upon search of the vehicle, conducted in the presence of an Executive Magistrate and other officials, 13 sacks containing 388 Kgs of Ganja, were allegedly recovered from beneath the regular cargo. The Police also seized cash of Rs.95,000/-, the said truck and other articles, with the total value of seizure stated to be Rs.1,53,31,000/-. The applicant was accordingly arrested on 07.09.2025 for alleged illegal inter-State transportation of Ganja. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the applicant was not informed of the grounds of his arrest in the manner required under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, as mandated by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India and another, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 802. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 07.09.2025, and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 3 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that 388 Kgs of Ganja, along with cash of Rs.95,000/- and other articles, were seized and recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Learned State counsel further submits that, in the present case, the applicant was duly informed of the grounds of his arrest in compliance with Section 47 of the BNSS, before his arrest. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu in SLP (Crl.) No. 11944/2026, wherein the applicability of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500, has been considered. It is submitted that the applicant herein was arrested on 07.09.2025, whereas the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) was pronounced on 06.11.2025 and was made prospective in operation. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that 388 Kgs of Ganja, which is much above the commercial quantity, has been seized from the possession of the present applicant, and the applicant has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation in respect thereof, at this stage, the plea of false implication cannot be accepted. 4 7. Undisputedly the applicant was arrested on 07.09.2025, i.e. prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) on 06.11.2025. The Supreme Court, in Sonam Raghuvanshi (supra), has reiterated that the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing, as introduced by Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), was directed to operate prospectively. Therefore, the ground raised by the applicant regarding non- furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing, on the basis of the subsequent judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), cannot, at this stage, be accepted as a ground for grant of bail. Consequently, the said ground does not furnish any basis for enlarging the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Umesh Yadav, involved in Crime No. 172/2025 registered at Police Station – Kumhari, District Durg, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) ii (C), 25 and 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar