1 2026:CGHC:6600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9584 of 2025 1 - Surendra Kumar Son Of Devlal Aged About 34 Years Resident of Ward No. 9, Aagapura, P.S. And District Bara Rajasthan. 2 - Mahavir Sen Son Of Satyanarayan Sen Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Kunj Bihar Colony Bara, P.S. And District Bara Rajasthan. --- Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O2cer, Police Station Singhoda District Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant Along with MCRC No. 72 of 2026 Dipak Sharma S/o Brajmohan Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o Nareda, P.S. Bara, District- Bara, Rajasthan. --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2026 1. Since the above-mentioned two :rst bail applications arise out of same incident, same crime number and registered at same police RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 station, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These are the First bail applications :led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 73/2025 registered at Police Station – Singhoda, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.), for the o>ence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the police of Police Station Singhoda, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.), received a secret information from the informant and on the said information police conducted a raid and seized 11 kg of contraband Ganja from the joint possession of the applicants. Thereafter, o>ence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered against the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They further submit that the contraband Ganja was not seized from the joint possession of the present applicants. They further submit that the alleged contraband Ganja seized from the possession of the accused persons is less than the commercial quantity. They also submit that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. They further submits that both the applicants, namely, Surendra Kumar 3 and Dipak Sharma have no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act in the State of Rajasthan as well as State of Chhattisgarh and the applicant namely Mahavir Sen has two criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act in the State of Rajasthan. It is further submitted that they are in jail since 01.09.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, they pray for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail applications of the applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that from the joint possession of the applicants total 11 kg of contraband Ganja was seized. He further submits that the applicant, namely, Surendra Kumar has one criminal antecedent under the IPC in the State of Rajasthan and the applicant namely Mahavir Sen has two criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act in the State of Rajasthan, which shows that the applicants are habitual o>ender, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, that the applicant, namely, Mahavir Sen has two criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act in the State of Rajasthan which is pending, shows that applicant is a habitual o>ender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in 4 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 is not a :t case to enlarge the applicant, namely, Mahavir Sen on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant, namely, Mahavir Sen, involved in Crime No. 73/2025 registered at Police Station – Singhoda, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.), for the o>ence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 8. Whereas, the applicants, namely, Surendra Kumar and Dipak Sharma have no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act in the State of Rajasthan as well as State of Chhattisgarh, the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and they are languishing in jail since 01.09.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicants namely, Surendra Kumar and Dipak Sharma are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicants, namely, Surendra Kumar and Dipak Sharma, involved in Crime No. 73/2025 registered at Police Station – Singhoda, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.), for the o>ence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court 5 concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall :le an undertaking to the e>ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates :xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date :xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without su2cient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date :xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates :xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording 6 of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without su2cient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 10. O2ce is directed to send a certi:ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan