1 2026:CGHC:20551 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3015 of 2026 Faizan Qureshi S/o Khurshid Qureshi Aged About 34 Years R/o Adharsh Nagar Potiya Chowk Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/ State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.05.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.93/2026 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) and ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.04 17:57:15 +0530 2 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution story i.e. on 18.01.2026, police received secret information that two persons were travelling on a Bullet motorcycle carrying illicit contraband. Acting on the said information, the police reached the spot and intercepted the accused persons. On search of the vehicle, 4.030 kg of Ganja was recovered. The recovered contraband was found in the joint possession of the present applicant and co-accused. Accordingly, the contraband was seized and the accused persons were taken into custody as per law. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case without any involvement in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant neither committed nor participated in any illegal activity, and the evidence collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. The alleged contraband Ganja was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant. The applicant is in custody since 18.01.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time, resulting in prolonged detention, hence he prays for grant of regular bail. 3 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application submitting that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, involving recovery of 4.030 kg of Ganja from his joint possession with co-accused. It is further submitted that the applicant has several criminal antecedents and one other case under the NDPS Act is also pending against him. The charge-sheet in the present case has already been filed and the date of arrest of the applicant is 18.01.2026. The seizure and investigation have been conducted in accordance with law and sufficient material is available against the applicant. Hence, looking to his criminal background and gravity of offence, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the recovery of contraband Ganja from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused, this Court is not inclined to grant bail. It is further noted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 18.01.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant is also having criminal antecedents and one other case under the NDPS Act of the year 2016 is pending against him. Which shows that the present applicant is a habitual 4 offender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the bail application is rejected. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Faizan Qureshi, involved in Crime No.93/2026 registered at Police Station: Supela, District Durg(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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 Arpan