1 2026:CGHC:16167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3157 of 2026 Bhagwan Sethi S/o Shyam Sethi, Aged About 26 Years R/o Narla, PS Narla, District Kalahandi (Orissa) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through PS Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Premshankar Yadav, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.04.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 656/2025 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.09.2025, the police received secret information to the effect that two persons were present behind Satguru Kabir Ashram, New Bus Stand, in possession of ganja contained in white-coloured sacks and were actively seeking customers to sell the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.09 12:15:58 +0530 2 same. Acting upon the said information, the police party proceeded to the spot and questioned the co-accused persons regarding their presence there, however, they failed to provide any satisfactory explanation. Thereafter, the police party apprised them of the secret information and conducted a search of the sacks. Upon such search, 6.500 kilograms of ganja was recovered. The contraband was duly seized, and the accused persons were arrested in accordance with law. It is further the case of the prosecution that the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons were recorded, wherein, in the memorandum of co-accused Gurucharan, the name of the present applicant surfaced. On the basis of the said memorandum, the present applicant has been implicated and arrayed as an accused in the case. The allegation against the present applicant is that he had supplied ganja to co-accused Gurucharan, who in turn sold the same to other persons. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the present applicant was arrested by the police of Police Station Ambikapur on 02.11.2025, and since then he has been in judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied with in this case. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant has been in jail since 02.11.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. As such, the 3 applicant is not entitled to be released on bail 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the the fact that the applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender 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. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Bhagwan Sethi, involved in Crime No. 656/2025 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, 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 Abhishek