1 2026:CGHC:2210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 68 of 2026 Shams Tourej (Tabrej @ Babu Ansari) S/o Md. Aurangzeb Aged About 22 Years (Written In Challan) R/o Ward No. 06, Mahavir Mohalla Police Station And Tehsil Pratappur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O昀케cer - Police Station, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) (Cause Title is taken from the Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant /State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 14/01/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of Second anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.306/2025, registered at Police Station– Surajpur District – Surajpur, (C.G.), for alleged commission of o昀昀ence punishable under Section 21(C) and 29 of NDPS Act. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that it is alleged that on 23.06.2025, secret information was received to the e昀昀ect that Mohd. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Shahid Raza, resident of Manpur, was selling narcotic drugs near his house. Upon summoning independent witnesses and conducting a raid, 31 bottles of Onrex cough syrup were recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Shahid Raza. The entire procedure was carried out on the spot in the presence of witnesses, and a Dehati Nalishi was recorded. On the basis of the said Dehati Nalishi, First Information Report was registered at Police Station Surajpur as Crime No. 306/2025 for the o昀昀ence punishable under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act against co-accused Mohd. Shahid Raza alias Shaheen. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was 昀椀led against accused Mohd. Shahid Raza alias Shaheen and absconding accused Tabrej alias Babu Ansari for the o昀昀ence punishable under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act. From the perusal of the record, it is further revealed that accused Mohd. Shahid Raza alias Shaheen, in his memorandum statement, stated that he had been in telephonic conversation with Tabrej/applicant from his mobile number 7489952402 to Tabrej’s mobile number 7803906510, and that on 23.06.2025, Tabrej had come near his house and supplied narcotic drugs and thereafter left the place. In the present case, the Call Detail Records (CDR) and Customer Application Forms (CAF) pertaining to mobile numbers 78039xxxxx and 74899xxxxx have been placed on record. Upon such acts of the accused persons, the aforesaid o昀昀ence has been registered against them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present second anticipatory bail application is maintainable, as the earlier 3 application was dismissed for non-appearance and not on merits because he was on adjustment and therefore does not operate as res judicata. It is further submitted that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible in law in the absence of any corroborative recovery and no contraband has been recovered from the applicant, thereby excluding the applicability of the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act against him. The call detail records relied upon by the prosecution do not disclose any incriminating conversation or conspiracy and mere telephonic contact without content cannot establish culpability. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, has deep roots in society, had voluntarily o昀昀ered to surrender, and there is no requirement of custodial interrogation as the case is purely document-based. In these circumstances, continued denial of anticipatory bail would amount to pre-trial punishment and would violate the applicant’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and therefore the applicant deserves the protection of anticipatory bail in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is noted that the 昀椀rst anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed due to non-appearance of counsel and was decided on merits and in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anarul SK V. The State of West Bengal {SLP (Crl. No. 4 12621/2024, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving NDPS Act is a very serious issue. The new ground raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the name of the applicant surfaced only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, on the strength of which he has been implicated in the case. 6. Hence, in view of the judgment in Anarul SK (supra), I do not 昀椀nd 昀椀t to be a 昀椀t case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant and as such second anticipatory bail application. 7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal