1 2026:CGHC:20257 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2883 of 2026 Rahul Gaikwad S/o Sngad Ram Gaikwad Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Hasda Naumber-1, Ps- Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (Cg) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.04.2026 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. 12/2026 registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 14.01.2026, the jurisdictional police received secret information regarding transportation of contraband ganja, pursuant to which they RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 intercepted a Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04- DM-5000 in front of Police Station Fingeshwar Parisar Gate, Main Road, Rajim, District Mahasamund, and apprehended the accused persons. Upon search, a total quantity of 19.423 kilograms of ganja was allegedly recovered from their possession. During the course of investigation, it further surfaced that the present applicant, who is the son of co-accused Angad Ram, had allegedly transferred an amount of Rs. 45,000/- into the bank account of another co- accused, namely Prafull Kumar Sahu, purportedly for the purchase of ganja. On the basis of the said allegation, the present applicant was also implicated and arrested, hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the police and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no contraband ganja has been seized from the possession of the applicant and his implication is solely based on the memorandum statement of co-accused persons, which is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel submits that the co- accused Angad Ram, who is the father of the present applicant, had borrowed money from co-accused Prafull Kumar Sahu and was being pressurized for repayment, and therefore, on the instructions of his father, the applicant merely transferred an amount of Rs. 45,000/- to the account of the said co-accused, which in no manner connects the applicant with the alleged offence. He further submits that though the co-accused Mahendra Verma has been rejected 3 bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 2977/2026 vide order dated 02.04.2026 on account of his criminal antecedents of similar nature, but another similarly situated co-accused, namely Prafull Kumar Sahu, has been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 2364/2026 vide order dated 28.04.2026, considering that he has no previous criminal antecedents. It is submitted that the present applicant also has no criminal antecedents, is in jail since 15.01.2026, and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, on the ground of parity as well as the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused person has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the material available on record, this Court finds that no contraband has been seized from the conscious possession of the present applicant and his implication appears to be primarily based on the memorandum statement of co-accused and the allegation of transfer of Rs. 45,000/-, which, at this stage, is a matter of trial. Further, the fact that co-accused Mahendra Verma 4 has been rejected bail on account of his criminal antecedents of similar nature, thereby distinguishing his case, whereas another co- accused, namely Prafull Kumar Sahu, who has no criminal antecedents, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2364/2026 vide order dated 28.04.2026, and the present applicant, who also does not have any criminal antecedents, stands on a similar footing and is entitled to the benefit of parity. The applicant is in jail since 15.01.2026, is aged about 21 years, and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Rahul Gaikwad, involved in Crime No. 12/2026 registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence under Section 20(b) 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through 5 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 forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan