1 2026:CGHC:16950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3344 of 2026 Adip Kumar Verma @ Tengana S/o. Late Baliram Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o Birkona Thana, Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 429/2025, registered at Police Station- Masturi District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 01.07.2025, the police of Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), received credible information from an informant that one Neeraj Verma @ Monu KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Verma, a resident of Village Pandhi, was transporting illicit contraband (ganja) from Bargarh, Odisha, in a grey coloured Maruti Wagon R bearing registration No. CG-10-BQ-9133, for the purpose of illegal sale and was proceeding via Jayramnagar towards Ganiyari–Kota. Acting upon the said information, the police team, along with independent witnesses and necessary equipment, proceeded to the location near Tihara-point, Jayramnagar. The said vehicle was intercepted and upon inquiry, the driver disclosed his identity as Neeraj Verma @ Monu Verma. After due verification and preparation of necessary panchnama, a search of the vehicle was conducted. During the search, a total of 19 packets containing contraband ganja were recovered from the vehicle, kept in separate bags and polythene packets, weighing in aggregate 20.100 kilograms. The contraband was duly seized in the presence of witnesses in accordance with law. On the basis of memorandum statements of the accused persons, including the present applicant Adeep Kumar Verma @ Tengna, it has been alleged that co-accused Vinod Verma @ Vinod Kumar Adhauliya had earlier supplied approximately 5 kilograms of ganja to the applicant, which was stored by him and later handed over to another person on the instructions of the said co-accused. It is further alleged that the applicant was paid monetary consideration for storing the contraband. Accordingly, offence under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act has been registered against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed 3 before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused namely Vinod Kumar whose bail was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 8470/2025 vide order dated 11.11.2025. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, co-accused Vinod Kumar preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the matter, was pleased to grant bail to co-accused in SLP (Criminal) No. 19291/2025, vide order dated 01.04.2026. (Copy of the order is annexed herewith as Annexure A-3). In view of the bail granted to the co-accused in an identical set of facts and circumstances, the present applicant also prays for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present applicant is not entitled to bail merely on the ground of parity. It is contended that the role of the present applicant is distinct and specific and he is actively involved in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the offence is of serious nature under the NDPS Act and the contraband recovered is of commercial quantity and moreover, the applicant had three previous criminal antecedents out of which in two cases, he has been acquitted and one is of the Excise Act is still pending therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the material available on record, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of contraband article which was recovered from the possession of the co-accused i.e. total 20.100 Kgs of Ganja, which is above commercial quantity and further considering the fact that the co-accused namely Vinod Kumar whose bail was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 8470/2025 vide order dated 11.11.2025, being aggrieved by the said rejection, co-accused Vinod Kumar preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the matter, was granted bail to co-accused Vinod Kumar in SLP (Criminal) No. 19291/2025, vide order dated 01.04.2026 (copy of the order is annexed herewith as Annexure A- 3) and further it appears that the case of the applicant is better than that of co-accused thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Adip Kumar Verma @ Tengana, involved in Crime No. 429/2025, registered at Police Station- Masturi District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i)The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect 5 that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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 fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse 6 of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal