1 2026:CGHC:16969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1692 of 2026 Suraj Singh S/o Yashwant Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Muktipara, Atal Awas Ambikapur, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S.- Gandhinagar, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Tiwary, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.04.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed 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. 220/2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.04.2025, co-accused persons, namely Sagar Chauhan and Prahlad Vasudev, were apprehended, and a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.15 10:54:35 +0530 2 i.e., Talgesic (Buprenorphine) Injection and Avil (Pheniramine Maleate) Injection, was allegedly seized from their possession. The present applicant has been implicated in the instant case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, Sagar Chauhan, recorded while he was in police custody, wherein he allegedly disclosed that he had purchased the said injections from the present applicant, Suraj Singh. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the core issue is that on 19.05.2025, the applicant visited Gandhinagar Police Station to report the loss of his mobile phone. During this visit, certain verbal exchanges took place between the applicant and the police officials. Owing to this, the police officials falsely implicated the applicant in two separate offences under the NDPS Act, registered as Crime No. 133/2025 and Crime No. 220/2025 at Gandhinagar Police Station. Consequently, the applicant was taken into custody on the same day. He also submits that when the applicant’s health deteriorated significantly, the police officials arranged for his transfer to the Government Hospital, Ambikapur. It was only at that stage that his family came to know about the alleged offences. In this regard, the applicant’s wife also submitted a written representation to the Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur (C.G.); however, no substantive action was taken thereon. He further submits that the entire case of the prosecution against the applicant hinges solely upon the memorandum statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is inadmissible in evidence against the present applicant. He also submits that it is a settled principle of law that a confessional statement made by an accused before a police officer is not admissible in evidence against a co-accused. In the absence 3 of any independent corroborative evidence, the applicant cannot be kept incarcerated merely on the basis of such a weak and inadmissible piece of evidence. It is further submitted that no recovery of any contraband or psychotropic substance has been made from the conscious possession of the applicant or at his instance. The mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act have not been complied with in respect of the applicant, as no search or seizure was conducted involving him. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that, apart from the present case, the applicant has one more criminal antecedent, which is also listed today before this Court. He further submits that the applicant has been in jail since 20.05.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time. Therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She submits that the bail application of the other co-accused, namely, Sagar Singh Chouhan has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1177 of 2026 vide order dated 04.02.2026. She further submits that the present applicant has 01 more criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, particularly that the applicant was allegedly falsely implicated following a dispute at the police station, that no recovery of 4 any contraband or psychotropic substance has been made from the conscious possession of the applicant or at his instance, the case of the prosecution primarily rests upon the memorandum statement of a co- accused, which has limited evidentiary value and further considering that the mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act have not been complied with in respect of the applicant and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant has been in custody since 20.05.2025, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, however, so far as the case of the co-accused, namely, Sagar Singh Chouhan, is concerned, his bail application has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1177 of 2026 vide order dated 04.02.2026, but the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing inasmuch as no recovery has been made from him and his implication is primarily based on the memorandum statement of a co-accused. 7. 7. Let the Applicant - Suraj Singh, involved in Crime No. 220/2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence under Section 22(C) 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 file an undertaking to the effect 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. 5 (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 BNSS. 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 209 of the 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 of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek