1 2026:CGHC:15828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3065 of 2026 Shailendra Kumar Pathak S/o Ravindra Nath Pathak Aged About 46 Years R/o Parjudeeh Post- Kopiya Thana- Bakhira District- Sant Kabir (U.P.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.04.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 624/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per secret information received from the informant, the Police of concerned Police Station seized total 28.2 kgs of Ganja from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused, which led to the registration of alleged offence against the applicant & co-accused and the applicant was arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 21.03.2025 passed in MCRC No.501 of 2025, therefore this second bail application is filed on the ground that from the possession of present applicant as per seizure memo, 14.88 kgs of Ganja has been seized, which is less than the commercial quantity and will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs. She further submits that out of 13 witnesses, the statement of only two witnesses have been recorded, further charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case, the applicant is in jail since 05.12.2024 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been 3 filed in the present case. She further submits that from the joint possession of applicant and co-accused 28.2 Kgs of Ganja has been recovered, which is much above the commercial quantity, as such, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 passed in MCRC No. 501 of 2025 on the ground that the contraband article i.e. 28.2 kgs of Ganja seized from the joint possession of applicant and co-accused was much above the commercial quantity and counsel for the applicant was failed to give plausible explanation regarding the said recovery, the new ground raised by counsel for the applicant is that, from the possession of present applicant as per seizure memo, 14.88 kgs of Ganja has been seized, which is less than the commercial quantity and will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs, but considering the fact that it is an organized crime committed in organized manner and total contraband i.e. 28.2 kgs of Ganja has been seized form the joint possession of present applicant and co-accused, which is much above the prescribed commercial quantity threshold under the 4 NDPS Act, so far as the status of trial is concerned, out of 13 witnesses, the statement of 02 witnesses have been recorded, thus there appears to be no good ground to entertain the present second bail application of the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant- Shailendra Kumar Pathak, involved in Crime No. 624/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil