1 2026:CGHC:4718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 895 of 2026 Arvind Das Vaishnav S/o Kanhaiya Das Vaishnav Aged About 35 Years R/o Motipara, Station Road, Durg Opposite Dr Bhard Patankar Clinic City Police Station Durg C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O2cer, Police Station City Kotwali, Dist Durg C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 371/2025, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, District- Durg (C.G.) for the o;ence punishable under Sections 21(C) and 27(a) of NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 03.08.2025, secret information was received that a person was carrying a contraband substance for the purpose of selling it in the open market. Acting upon KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the said information, the police conducted a raid and apprehended the applicant. It is alleged that 850 tablets of Intrazepam (Nitzascen 10) were seized from his possession, weighing approximately 527 grams. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered, the applicant was taken into custody, and upon completion of the investigation, the police ?led the charge sheet before the learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no material available on record to connect him with the commission of the alleged o;ence. It is contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and that the investigating agency has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that there is a break in the chain of custody of the alleged contraband and no evidence to show that the applicant had knowledge of the contents of the seized substance. Although the prosecution alleges recovery of commercial quantity attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the events narrated in the charge-sheet do not establish the applicant’s involvement. The applicant is a permanent resident, has no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. The charge-sheet has already been ?led, the trial is yet to commence and its conclusion is likely to take considerable time. The applicant has been in custody for more than eight months, which is adversely a;ecting his physical and mental health. Hence, the applicant prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the quantity of contraband recovered from the 3 possession of the applicant is above the commercial quantity. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to be granted 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 the o;ence and the fact that the quantity of above-mentioned contraband article which has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, is much above the commercial quantity and further the case diary reveals that the involvement of the applicant in the present case, appears to be reasonable and it cannot be a case of false implication and the applicant has failed to give an explanation for the same. In such a situation, considering the nature and quantity of the seized narcotic substance, it would not be justi?ed to grant bail to the applicant/accused. 7. Therefore, the bail application ?led by the applicant/accused– Arvind Das Vaishnav involved in Crime No. 371/2025, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, District- Durg (C.G.) for the o;ence punishable under Sections 21(C) and 27(a) of NDPS Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. O2ce is directed to provide a certi?ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal