1 2026:CGHC:2989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 642 of 2026 Aaditya Meshram S/o Dharmendra Meshram Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Dindayal Nagar, Chikhali Chowk O.P. Chikhali, District - Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) (Note - Police Station Rajnandgaon Is Wrongly Mentioned Instead of District Rajnandgaon) .. Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House O3cer, Police Station Basna District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardawaj, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.01.2026 1. This is the Second bail application 9led 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. 171/2025 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the o>ence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The 9rst bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 4930 of 2025 vide order dated 27.06.2025. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.20 14:31:21 +0530 2 3. As per the prosecution story, on 25.04.2025, during vehicle checking, a Swift car bearing registration number CG-04-PN-1413 was stopped and searched. Upon questioning the occupants of the said vehicle, the driver disclosed his name as Bhojraj Sinha, the second occupant disclosed his name as Aaditya Meshram, and the third occupant disclosed his name as Lakki alias Chumman Yadav, all residents of District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. According to the case diary, the accused persons were allegedly illegally transporting 19.00 kilograms of the narcotic substance “Ganja”, valued at Rs. 3,80,000/-, which was kept inside two white plastic bags in the rear dickey (boot) of the Swift car, in their joint possession. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the present application is being preferred in pursuance of the express liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.07.2025, passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 9731/2025. While dismissing the earlier bail application, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that, in the event of a change in circumstances or if no reasonable progress is achieved in concluding the trial within one year, the applicant would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the trial court, subject to sincere endeavour and full cooperation in the conduct of the trial and examination of six witnesses after rejection of the bail application. He also submits that since the passing of the aforesaid order, there has occurred a complete, fundamental, and irreversible change in circumstances. The prosecution evidence recorded thus far has not only failed to advance the case towards conviction but has, on the contrary, substantially weakened and dismantled the very foundation of the prosecution story. The testimony of prosecution witnesses has exposed grave in9rmities which 3 strike at the root of the alleged recovery and seizure. He also submits that the substratum of the prosecution case rested upon the alleged seizure of contraband, its weighing, sealing, and preparation of panchnama at the spot in the presence of independent witnesses. However, the so-called independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported this narrative. PW-4 Pramod Kumar, PW-5 Nitesh Yadav, and PW-6 Abdul Karim, who was projected as the weighman, have categorically failed to corroborate the prosecution version regarding the conduct of seizure and related proceedings at the spot. He also submits that from the possession of the applicant intermediate quantity of Ganja was seized, and therefore, it 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 and from the joint possession of the applicant and other co-accused persons 19 kgs of Ganja was seized. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 25.04.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been 9led before the competent Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering the fact that the 9rst bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 4930 of 2025 vide order dated 27.06.2025, it transpires from the record that after rejection of the 9rst bail application, the applicant preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 9731/2025 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 4 15.07.2025 with a direction that if there is any change in circumstances or if there is no reasonable progress in concluding the trial within the next one year, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the Trial Court. However, in the present case, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only 6 witnesses have been examined, and 3 seizure witnesses have turned hostile. Moreover, considering the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 25.04.2025 and that the conclusion of the trial may take some time, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant - Aaditya Meshram, involved in Crime No. 171/2025 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the o>ence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 9le an undertaking to the e>ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 9xed 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date 9xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su3cient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation 5 under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date 9xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 9xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without su3cient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. O3ce is directed to send a certi9ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek