1 2026:CGHC:3404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 727 of 2026 Pustam Barik S/o Shambhu Barik Aged About 22 Years R/o Tatarkila, P.S. Bansuni, District Bodha Orissa ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House O昀케cer, Police Station Bagbahar (Chowki Kotba), District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashok Dixit, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.17/2025, registered at Police Station: Bagbahar (Chowki Kotba) District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 21(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 119(3) of Motor Vehicle Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, the concerned Police Station KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Bagbahar (Chowki Kotba) received secret information from an informant that, at the time of the incident, unknown persons were transporting illegal contraband ganja in a vehicle for the purpose of sale. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a seizure and recovered 98.600 kg of contraband ganja from an open place at the spot. As a result thereof, the police registered an o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 119(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the main accused persons. However, merely on the basis of suspicion, the present applicant has also been implicated by registration of the FIR in connection with the aforesaid o昀昀ence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no nexus whatsoever with the incident as narrated by the prosecution. It is contended that the alleged contraband was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant and the seizure memo has not been duly proved through seizure witnesses. At the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was not present at the spot and has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion, without any cogent or su昀케cient material. The applicant was not named in the FIR and has been roped in subsequently only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the main accused, which by itself has no independent evidentiary value. The investigating agency failed to conduct a proper and fair investigation prior to implicating the applicant and has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The applicant has neither committed 3 the alleged o昀昀ence nor was he in any manner involved therein, yet he has been wrongly arrested without seizure of any incriminating material from his possession. The allegations levelled against the applicant are false and fabricated, the charge-sheet has already been 昀椀led, and no custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 12.08.2025, has undergone more than 昀椀ve months of incarceration, and continued detention would cause undue hardship to his family, further the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the present case involves recovery of commercial quantity of contraband ganja, i.e., 98.600 kg, therefore, the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act are clearly attracted. It is further submitted that the present applicant has been implicated on the basis of the memorandum statement of the main accused during investigation, and his involvement in the o昀昀ence has surfaced therein. Considering the seriousness and gravity of the o昀昀ence, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of o昀昀ence levelled against the applicant and further the fact that the quantity of contraband article which is said to have been recovered from the open place is above the commercial quantity and the present applicant has been arrested only on the basis of memorandum statement of the main accused 4 hence, it is an organized crime, looking to the seriousness of this case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a 昀椀t case to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Pustam Barik involved in Crime No.17/2025, registered at Police Station: Bagbahar (Chowki Kotba) District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 21(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 119(3) of Motor Vehicle Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to sat that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. O昀케ce is directed to provide a certi昀椀ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal