1 2026:CGHC:4441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 885 of 2026 Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Munna Lal Sahu , Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Lawan, Police Station Lawan, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Chandrakar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Nupoor Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.569/2025, registered at Police Station- Bhatapara Gramin, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the Police of Police Station – Bhatapara Gramin, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) has received a secret information through the informant and on the basis of such information, the Police has seized a total of 2.200 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of the present co-accused, and on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused the name of the applicant RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 has come into light. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested and the crime has been registered by the Police. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the co-accused has granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8594/2025. The applicant is in jail since 01.09.2025. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that a total of 2.200 Kgs of Ganja from the possession of the present co-accused, and on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused the name of the applicant has come into light as a supplier of the said contraband article. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that there are 2 criminal antecedents of the applicant out of which one is under the NDPS Act which is still pending. Hence, this bail application is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the quantity of contraband article seized from the possession of the co-accused i.e. 2.200 Kgs of Ganja, and on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused the name of the applicant has come into light as a supplier of the said contraband article, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, 3 moreover, though the co-accused has granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8594/2025, but there are 2 criminal antecedents of the applicant out of which one is under the NDPS Act which is still pending, for which no any plausible explanation has been given, he is a habitual offender and he has misused the bail granted to him earlier and it cannot be a case of false implication, 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 fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Shiv Kumar Sahu involved in Crime No.569/2025, registered at Police Station- Bhatapara Gramin, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the learned trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 9. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar