1 CGHC010359692026 2026:CGHC:42607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8700 of 2026 1 - Shiva Patel S/o Bahoran Patel Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Semarchuva P.S. Jarhagaon District Mungeli (C.G.). 2 - Aditya Karmakar S/o Shri Parmeshwar Karmakar, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Semarchuva P.S. Jarhagaon District Mungeli (C.G.). ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through -S H O P.S. Mungeli District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Dushyant Dayal, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/09/2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 139/2026, registered at Police Station Mungeli (City Kotwali), District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.04.2026, ASI Bhanu Pratap Barman, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, received secret information regarding transportation of illicit Ganja towards Gidha Bypass, Mungeli. A blockade was accordingly arranged, and a TVS 2 Jupiter bearing registration No. CG-10-BP-7617, carrying the present applicants Shiva Patel and Aditya Karmakar along with a juvenile, was intercepted. Upon search in accordance with law, 9.570 kg of Ganja in nine packets was seized from applicant No.1 and 13.174 kg in thirteen packets from applicant No.2, totaling 22.744 kg. The applicants were arrested on 05.06.2026, and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. He would further submit that the contraband seized from the applicants is below commercial quantity as from applicant No.1 9.570 kg ganja, and from applicant no.2 13.174 kg ganja have been seized; thus, the rigous of section 37 would not attract. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, have been languishing in jail since 05.06.2026, the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed, and looking to the individual recoveries, they deserve the concession of bail; therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the total quantity of contraband Ganja recovered from the joint possession of the applicants i.e. 22.744 kg, which undisputedly falls within the category of commercial quantity (exceeding 20 kg), thus, the stringent twin statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are directly attracted, and in the absence of any reasonable ground to believe that the applicants are not guilty of the offence, they are not entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the fact that both the applicants 3 were intercepted while transporting illicit contraband Ganja, from their joint and conscious possession a total quantity of 22.744 kg of Ganja was recovered, i.e., 9.570 kg from applicant No.1 and 13.174 kg from applicant No.2, which constitutes a commercial quantity, thus rigours and statutory bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. The applicants have failed to satisfy the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty of the alleged offence and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Mere absence of previous criminal antecedents or the period of custody undergone cannot, by itself, justify bypassing the statutory mandate of Section 37. 7. Having regard to the material available on case diary, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicants at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 8. However, the observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only; the learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the trial on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim