1 2026:CGHC:15855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3078 of 2026 Rajkumar Thakur S/o Lt. Pancham Thakur Aged About 53 Years R/o Sai Nagar Camp 1, Bhilai Tehsil And District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O2cer, P.S.- Newai District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.04.2026 1. This is the First bail application 8led 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. 89/2025 registered at Police Station – Newai, District- Durg (C.G.), for the o<ence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station Newai, District- Durg (C.G.), received a secret information from the informant and on the said information police conducted a raid and RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 seized 2.172 k.g. of Ganja from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, o<ence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered against present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the said contraband article has not been seized from the exclusive possession of the present applicant. He further submits that there is no material evidence available against the applicant which connects him with the commission of the crime. He also submits that the alleged recovered Ganja is much less than commercial quantity. He also submits that the present applicant has been arrested only on the basis of the memorandum of the other co- accused and on the ground of suspicious he has been arrested and there is no eye witness to prove the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he is in jail since 16.04.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been 8led in the present case before the competent Court. She submits that 2.172 k.g. of Ganja seized from the possession of the present applicant. She also submits that the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents in 3 the similar nature which are pending, shows that the applicant is involved in such o<ences and is a habitual o<ender, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the contraband article i.e. 2.172 k.g. of Ganja seized from the possession of the present applicant and learned State counsel has pointed out that the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act bearing crime Nos.16/2023 and 84/2022 which are pending, shows that the applicant is involved in such o<ences and is a habitual o<ender, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a 8t case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Rajkumar Thakur, involved in Crime No. 89/2025 registered at Police Station – Newai, District- Durg (C.G.), for the o<ence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 4 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. O2ce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan