1 CGHC010382532026 2026:CGHC:42288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9167 of 2026 1 - Bishnu Hati S/o. Shri Kaenru Hati Aged About 29 Years R/o. Ward No. 06 Nuapada, Kantabhanji, Police Station - Kantabhaji, District - Balangir (Odisha) (Applicant Details Correctly Mention As Per Aadhar Card) --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Station House Officer, Police Station - Kotwali, Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.358/2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Rajandgaon C.G.) for the offence punsible under Sections 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act. 2. First Bail Application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 24.042026 in MCRC No. 2653/2026. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 13.07.2025 the Police of Police Station Kotwali received secret information that the co-accused is involved 2 in the selling of contraband article near Railway Station. Based on the above information the Police raided the place of incident and arrested the present applicant while he was carrying contraband articles. Total 199 tablets were seized from the possession of the co-accused Neel Gidwani. During further investigation of the matter memorandum statements of the co-accused Neel Gidwani as well as other co-accused persons were recorded, whereby the involvement of the co-accused and present applicant was found in the present case, therefore offence under section 21 (B) of the NDPS act was registered against the applicant and other co- accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No contraband has been recovered from his exclusive possession. He would further submit that the applicant has 12 criminal antecedents, out of which 5 cases have been disposed of. It is argued that the applicant has been in jail since 14.07.2025. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Thus, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has 12 criminal antecedents and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant has 12 criminal antecedents, out of which 7 are still pending, and further considering the quantity of contraband 3 involved in the present case, which is above the commercial quantity, and there being no change in circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Jyoti