1 CGHC010378272026 2026:CGHC:42689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9049 of 2026 1 - Ganesh Bhaurao Jaghav S/o Bhaurao Jaghav Aged About 45 Years R/o Dewar Padurn P.S. Arani, District Yavatmal Maharashtra ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mujgahan, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mahant Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Ritika Verma, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 01.10.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.42/2026 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(b), 29, 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS 2 Act. Earlier first bail application of the applicant bearing MCRC No.7912 of 2026 was rejected on merits vide order dated 25.08.2026. 2) The prosecution story, in brief, is that the Police of Police Station Mujgahan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), received secret information through an informant and, on the basis of the said information, seized a total of 21.206 kgs. of Ganja from the possession of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested and the case was registered by the Police. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would further submit that 10.280 kg. of ganja was seized from the possession of the applicant, which falls within the intermediate quantity. He would contend that, though a total of 21.206 kg. of ganja was seized from the co-accused but separate seizure memorandums were prepared. It is also submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits in MCRC No. 7912 of 2026 vide order dated 25.08.2026. He would further contend that the applicant is in jail since 20.02.2026, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4) On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that 21.206 kg. of ganja was seized from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused, which is much above the commercial quantity, attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. She would further submit that the first bail application was rejected on merits and there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 3 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record, and the quantity of contraband seized, it is apparent that a total of 21.206 kg. of ganja was seized from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused, which is much above the prescribed commercial quantity. The quantity of contraband involved in the case, therefore, attracts the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Further, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits in MCRC No. 7912 of 2026 vide order dated 25.08.2026, and no substantial change in circumstances has been brought on record warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha