1 2026:CGHC:2289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8910 of 2025 1 - Lavprit Singh Urf Vicky S/o Sarbjeet Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Nikka Chakka, Police Station Chantiwind, District- Amritsar Punjab. 2 - Vikramjeet Singh Urf Vicky S/o Amarjeet Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Bada Chbba, Police Station Chantiwind, District- Amritsar Punjab. ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Durg, Kotwali, District Durg C.G. ...Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik. Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2026 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.15 13:34:52 +0530 2 172/2025 registered at Police Station – Durg Kotwali District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence under Section 21(A) & 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.04.2025, officers of Police Station City Kotwali, Durg, allegedly received secret information and apprehended three persons, namely Vishal Singh, Birendra @ Bira Pardhi, and Atul Kumar, near Shivnath River, Mahamara Road, Durg, from whose possession 76.690 grams of a substance described as “Chitta (Heroin)” was allegedly seized; during interrogation, the said co-accused persons allegedly disclosed the name of the present applicant Vikramjeet Singh @ Vicky, resident of Amritsar (Punjab), along with one Lovepreet Singh @ Vicky, as persons who were purportedly involved in supplying the contraband, and on the basis of these disclosures, the present applicant was implicated in the case; it is the prosecution case that although no recovery was made from the applicant and he was not apprehended from the spot, his involvement surfaced through the memorandum statements of the co-accused, pursuant to which he was arrested on 19.05.2025, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that applicant, as no recovery of any narcotic substance has been made from him and there is absolutely no direct or independent evidence connecting him with the alleged offence; it is contended that the alleged seizure of 76.69 grams of Chitta (Heroin) is from other accused persons and the said quantity is only an intermediate 3 quantity, not a commercial quantity, therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted; the implication of the applicant is based solely on the disclosure statements of co-accused persons, which are inadmissible in evidence and cannot form the basis of conviction; it is further submitted that the investigation suffers from serious non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act, rendering the entire prosecution case doubtful; the applicant has been in judicial custody since 19.04.2025therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge- sheet has already been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submitted that applicant No. 1 has one criminal antecedent and applicant No. 2 has two criminal antecedents, therefore, they are not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 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, it is noted that the contraband article, i.e., 76.690 grams of brown sugar, was allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and the co-accused, which is less than the commercial quantity. Further, considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicants have been in custody since 19.05.2025, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take 4 considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicants - Lavprit Singh & Vikramjeet Singh involved in Crime No. 172/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 21(A) & 27(A)of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 5 of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 themselves 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 vaibhav