1 2026:CGHC:15387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2977 of 2026 Mahendra Verma S/o Rajkumar Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No.10, Uparwara Police Station - Abhanpur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh (Particulars Of The Applicant Is Mentioned Correctly) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station - Fingeshwar, District- Gariyabandh (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/04/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 12/2026 registered at Police Station, Fingeshwar, District- Gariyabandh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) of NDPS Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.01.2026, the police authorities received an insider’s tip-off that four persons travelling in KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 a Tata Safari car bearing registration No. C.G.-04-DM-5000 were transporting a psychotropic substance, namely ganja and were proceeding from Mahasamund via Fingeshwar Main Road towards Rajim. Upon receiving the said information, the police authorities immediately conducted a raid at the indicated spot. The vehicle was intercepted and four persons were found inside the car, out of whom two were juveniles. The names of the two major accused persons are Ajay Sahu and Anand Ram Gaikwad. Upon search of the vehicle, a total quantity of 19.423 kg of psychotropic substance (ganja) was recovered from their joint possession and seized in accordance with law. Thereafter, they were arrested on 14.01.2026. It is further the case of the prosecution that, on the basis of the memorandum statements of co-accused Ajay Sahu and Anand Ram Gaikwad, it was disclosed that they were transporting the said ganja at the instance of the present applicant, who had allegedly provided them money to procure ganja from Odisha and deliver the same at Abhanpur. On the basis of the said memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, the present applicant was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the police authorities have filed the charge-sheet for the offences as mentioned in the application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the true and correct facts of the case are entirely different from those alleged by the prosecution and that the present applicant has been falsely implicated by the prosecuting agency. It is contended that no psychotropic substance, namely ganja, has been seized from the 3 possession of the present applicant and the alleged contraband recovered from the co-accused persons does not belong to him in any manner. The applicant is not connected with the alleged offence and has been falsely roped in due to previous enmity, as in an earlier case registered under the NDPS Act against him, the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, and in order to teach him a lesson, the police authorities have implicated him in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant neither knows the co-accused persons nor was he present at the spot at the time of the alleged seizure and he has been implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statements of the co- accused persons, which have no evidentiary value in absence of any corroboration. Even the alleged supplier, namely Praful Kumar Sahu, from whom the co-accused persons are said to have procured the ganja from Odisha, has not taken the name of the present applicant in his memorandum statement. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to produce any Call Detail Records along with the charge-sheet to establish any nexus between the applicant and the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 14.01.2026, the investigation has been completed, and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore no further custodial interrogation is required. The applicant is a poor person and the sole earning member of his family and his aged mother is suffering from old age ailments and is dependent upon him for her medical needs. It is further contended that there is no direct evidence to establish the 4 involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence, and thus the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act is not made out against him moreover, the prosecution has not invoked Section 29 of the NDPS Act relating to abetment or criminal conspiracy in the charge-sheet. It is also submitted that the quantity of ganja allegedly seized from the co-accused persons is 19.423 kg, which is below commercial quantity. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present case involves serious allegations under the provisions of the NDPS Act, and a substantial quantity of contraband (ganja) weighing 19.423 kg has been seized from the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that, on the basis of memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, the present applicant has been found to be the main person behind the transportation of the contraband, as he had allegedly financed and directed the co-accused persons to procure ganja from Odisha and deliver the same at Abhanpur. It is contended that the role of the present applicant is not merely incidental but is that of a key conspirator and therefore his involvement cannot be ruled out at this stage. Learned State counsel further submits that the offence alleged is grave in nature and has serious impact on society, and therefore the applicant does 5 not deserve the benefit of bail. It is also argued that there is sufficient material available on record to prima facie connect the present applicant with the commission of the offence, and merely because no contraband was recovered from his possession would not entitle him to bail at this stage. It is further submitted that if released on bail, there is likelihood that the applicant may abscond or influence the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that the present applicant has four criminal antecedents, out of which one case pertains to the NDPS Act, in which he is presently on bail and the matter is still pending for prosecution evidence. Therefore, it clearly indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender and does not deserve the benefit of bail. Accordingly, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the case diary and material available on record, it is apparent that a hue quantity of 19.423 kg of ganja has been seized from the possession of the co-accused persons and on the basis of memorandum statements of the co-accused, the present applicant has been implicated as the person who had allegedly financed and directed the procurement and transportation of the contraband. Though no contraband has been seized from the present applicant, however, at this stage, the memorandum statements of the co- accused persons prima facie indicate his involvement in the commission of the offence. It is further reflected from the record that the present applicant has criminal antecedents, including one case 6 under the NDPS Act, in which he is already on bail and the said case is still pending for prosecution evidence, which indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. 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 fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Mahendra Verma, involved in Crime No. 12/2026 registered at Police Station, Fingeshwar, District- Gariyabandh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(B) of NDPS Act, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal