Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7124 (CHH)

BHABEN MANDAL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/3606/2026 · 2026-04-21

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:18397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3606 of 2026 1. Bhaben Mandal S/o- Haripad Mandal Aged About 21 Years R/o- Village M.V. 17 P.S. Malkangiri District- Malkangiri (Odisha) 2. Govind Bachhad S/o- Sukumar Bachhad Aged About 20 Years R/o- Village M.V. 16 P.S. Kalimela District- Malkangiri (Odisha) 3. Chintu Modi S/o- Bijju Madi Aged About 18 Years R/o- Ashirbad Colony Malkangiri District-Malkangiri (Odisha) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Konta, District- Sukma (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.04.2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 21/2024 registered at Police Station – Konta, District- Sukma (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 28.09.2024, the police personnel PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.04.23 18:33:58 +0530 2 of Police Station Konta, District Sukma, conducted a search of a bus, during which they allegedly recovered 21 packets of contraband ganja, weighing a total of 44.300 kilograms, from eight persons, including the present applicants, who were traveling therein. Consequently, an FIR was registered under Section 20(B)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. The first bail application of the applicants were rejected by this Court on merit vide order dated 30.01.2025 passed in MCRC No. 840/2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicants are in jail since 28.09.2024. So far as the status of the trial is concerned, out of 11 witnesses, only 07 witnesses have been examined. He also submits that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State 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 first bail application of the applicants was rejected by this Court on the ground that total quantity of 44.300 Kgs of Ganja were seized from the joint possession of the applicants, which are much above the commercial quantity and shows that it is an organized crime, and as such, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From perusal of the order dated 30.01.2025, it is apparent that the first 3 bail application of the applicants was rejected on the ground that the quantity of the psychotropic substance seized from the applicants were above the commercial quantity and the applicants have failed to give any explanation for the same, further it cannot be a case of false implication. So far as the status of the trial is concerned, out of 11 witnesses, only 07 witnesses have been examined. No new ground has been raised in this second bail application. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 - Bhaben Mandal, Govind Bachhad and Chintu Modi filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, involved in Crime No. 21/2024 registered at Police Station – Konta, District- Sukma (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the learned trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously. 10. 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 Preeti