1 2026:CGHC:20201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3962 of 2026 Purn Chandra Sahu (Puran Chand) S/o Raghuraj Sahu, Aged About 44 Years R/o- Village- Begar P.S. Kesinga District- Kalahandi (Odisha) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Devendra Nagar District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 101/2025 registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 20(B), 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.05.2025, the police of Police Station Devendra Nagar, Raipur, upon receiving information from an informant and after complying with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, proceeded to Paras Nagar near the overbridge. From the possession of accused Sonu @ Sanjay Suryavanshi, a white cotton bag containing prohibited narcotic tablets “Spasmo Proxyvon Plus” (19 strips, each containing 8 capsules, total weight 119 grams) was seized. After arrest, the memorandum statement of the said accused was recorded, on the basis of which co-accused Vasudev Pandey @ Babu was apprehended and from his possession 6 strips (48 capsules) of “Spasmo Proxyvon Plus” were recovered. Further, from the possession of the present applicant/accused Purnachandra Sahu, 7 boxes of “Spasmo Proxyvon Plus” (total 936 capsules) and 6 boxes of “Spasmo Proxyvon Advance” (total 816 capsules), in all 1752 capsules weighing 1051.2 grams, were seized as commercial quantity. Accordingly, offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act has been registered and is under investigation. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2025 in MCRC No.6694 of 2025 on merits, therefore 3 this second bail application is filed on the ground that while rejecting the bail application of co-accused, Sanjay @ Sonu Suryavanshi, this Court had directed the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously, but the trial has not yet been concluded, so far as the status of trial is concerned, out of 10 witnesses, the statement of only 3 witnesses have been recorded till date, wherein seizure witness, namely, Tulesh Kumar Yadav (PW-2) has turned hostile before the trial Court, and the remaining witnesses are not appearing before the learned trial Court for recording their statements, further the applicant is in jail since 06.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, hence, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that though the applicant has no criminal antecedent, but from the joint possession of applicant and co- accused persons contraband article i.e. 1752 prohibited capsules of “Spasmo Proxyvon Plus” and “Spasmo Proxyvon Advance”, weighing 1051.2 grams has been recovered, which is much above the commercial quantity as notified under the NDPS Act, as such, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second 4 bail application of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2025 in MCRC No. 6694 of 2025 on the ground that the contraband article recovered from the joint possession of the applicant is much above the commercial quantity as notified under the NDPS Act and counsel for the applicant failed to give plausible explanation regarding the same, and the taken by the applicant that seizure witness has turned hostile, the same cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence. So far as the status of trial is concerned, out of 10 witnesses, the statement of 3 witnesses have already been recorded. As such, looking to the seriousness of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant-Purn Chandra Sahu (Puran Chand), involved in Crime No. 101/2025 registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B), 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected at this stage. 8. However, in view of the submission made by counsel for the applicant that remaining witnesses are not appearing before the learned trial Court for recording their statements, the concerned Superintendent of Police is directed to ensure the presence of 5 witnesses before the trial Court concerned on the date so fixed by it. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Superintendent of Police and trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil