1 2026:CGHC:3405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 722 of 2026 Rahul Dhruw S/o Bablu Dhruw Aged About 25 Years R/o Near Circus Ground, Station Ward Bhatapara, P S Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of CG Through P S Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/01/2026 1. This is the second bail application 6led under Section 483 of the BNSS, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 471/2025 registered at Police Station – Bhatapara City, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the o<ence punishable under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution’s case in brief is that on 28.08.2025, based on secret information received that the applicant and co-accused Suman Dhruw had kept Ganja for sale near Circus Ground. Based upon such, the police proceeded to the spot. During the search, they seized 1.106 kg of Ganja from the possession of Suman Dhruw and ₹500/- cash from the possession of the present applicant. Consequently, an FIR was KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 registered under Section 20B of the NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the 6rst bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 16.10.2025, therefore this second bail application is 6led on the ground that the applicant is in jail since 28.08.2025, hence, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the 6rst bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 8312/2025, vide order dated 16.10.2025 on merits. He further submits that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which two cases are under the NDPS Act, registered in the years 2021 and 2024 and one case is under the Excise Act, and another case is under the IPC, also of the years 2021 and 2024, respectively. Out of the two NDPS Act cases, one is still pending, and in the other, the applicant has been convicted and 6ned. Although no seizure has been made from the possession of the applicant in the present case, only ₹500/- was recovered from him. However, he is a habitual o<ender and is not entitled to the 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 the 6rst bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 8312/2025, vide order dated 16.10.2025 on merits and the new ground for 6ling of the second bail application is that the applicant is in jail since 28.08.2025. It further transpires that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which two cases are under the NDPS Act, 3 registered in the years 2021 and 2024 and one case is under the Excise Act and another case is under the IPC, of the years 2021 and 2024, respectively and out of the two NDPS Act cases, one is still pending and in the other, the applicant has been convicted and 6ned hence, no new ground has been raised to interfere by this Court, as such, he is a habitual o<ender, 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 6t case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of applicant – Rahul Dhruw, involved in Crime No. 471/2025, registered at Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. ODce is directed to provide a certi6ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal