1 2026:CGHC:20222 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1196 of 2026 Bulu Pradhan S/o Gopal Pradhan Aged About 30 Years R/o Souripali (Wrongly Mentioned As Souripal In The Impugned Order), P.S. Manamunda (Wrongly Mentioned As Manahunda In The Impugned Order) District Boudh, Orissa --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant MCRC No. 1602 of 2026 Rajeev Kumar Nayak S/o Shri Vivekanand Nayak, @ Bibekananda Nayak Aged About 41 Years R/o Quarter No. E/245, Sector- 15, VTC - Rourkela 3, District- Sundargarh, Orissa ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In- Charge, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicant (in MCRC No. 1196/2026) : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Applicant (in MCRC No. 1602/2026) Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Government Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.05.04 10:45:04 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. Since the above-mentioned two bail applications arise out of same crime number, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These are the First bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 81/2024 registered at Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. 3. As per the prosecution story, the police received information that certain persons were transporting illegal contraband concealed beneath vegetables in a pickup vehicle, which was proceeding from Uttai towards Sector-7. Acting on the said information, the police intercepted and seized the vehicle near Sector-7; however, the driver of the said vehicle fled from the spot taking advantage of the darkness. Upon search of the vehicle, a total quantity of 170.500 kg of contraband was recovered, which had been concealed beneath vegetables in separate plastic sacks. During the course of investigation, the owner of the said vehicle could not be traced. Thereafter, on the basis of CDR tower location, the applicant Rajeev Naik was apprehended, and his memorandum statement was recorded. In his statement, he alleged that the said vehicle had been sold to the applicant Bulu Pradhan and that both applicant had sent one Anuj Pradhan as the driver, along with the vehicle, to Chhattisgarh for the purpose of supplying vegetables as well as contraband. It is further alleged that on the date of the incident, the said Anuj Pradhan was 3 driving the vehicle and was subsequently arrested by the police. 4. In MCRC No. 1196/2026 - Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no seizure has been made from the possession of the applicant, and that he has been made an accused solely on the basis of the memorandum of a co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had no knowledge of the alleged contraband, as he had merely authorized the driver to transport vegetables and nothing else, and it is the driver who has allegedly committed the offence. Therefore, the applicant has no direct involvement in the present case. It is also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and he has been in judicial custody since 10.11.2025. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be granted bail. 5. In MCRC No.1602/2026 - Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of a memorandum statement, which is not sufficient. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had sold his vehicle to one Bulu Pradhan on 24.01.2024, and the said Bulu Pradhan was in possession of and operating the vehicle allegedly used in the present offence. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 10.11.2025. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be granted bail. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted. She also submits that as per the affidavit filed by the Station House Officer and Investigating Officer, Police 4 Station - Bhilai Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.) during investigation, the memorandum statement of the present accused applicant Rajiv Kumar Nayak was recorded infront of the relevant witnesses wherein, he has categorically deposed the fact that, in need of money, he has prepared a deed of sale for the pickup vehicle vide Registration bearing Number OD 14 V 4975, registered in his name to Rajeev Kumar Nayak. The name of the owner of the said Vehicle was not transferred, however, it was revealed that, the accused Bulu Pradhan had hired the aforesaid vehicle to driver Anuj Pradhan. The present accused applicant Rajiv Kumar Nayak and Bulu Pradhan together used the aforesaid vehicle to sell Ganja (Contraband) under the guise of selling vegetables. Further, applicant, namely, Bulu Pradhan has one previous criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, and the applicant, namely, Rajeev Kumar Nayak has no previous criminal antecedents. Further, considering the fact that it is an organized crime, hence they are not entitled for grant of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 08.04.2026, the Investigating Officer of the subject crime number and Station House Officer, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.), has filed his affidavit showing the incriminating evidence collected against the applicants during the course of investigation, which is quoted here as under: 3. That, the brief case of the prosecution is that, a secret Information was received by the Police Station Bhilai Nagar to the effect that, in Pick Up Vehicle bearing Registration No. OD 14 V 4975, some persons have kept illegal contraband beneath the vegetable and they were travelling towards Utal to Sector 7 and the said vehicle was seized near Sector 7, but the driver of the said 5 vehicle has fled away by taking benefit of darkness and the vehicle was searched where, total contraband was 170.500 KGs were seized, which was kept beneath the vegetable in separate plastic pack and during investigation, the owner of the said vehicle was not traced out, thereafter, on the basis of CDR tower location of mobile of co-accused Rajeev Nayak, he was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded wherein, he has stated that, the aforesaid vehicle was sold to the present accused applicant on the basis of sale and co- accused and the present accused applicant has sent one Anuj Pradhan as Driver and sent them to Chhattisgarh for supply of vegetable and contraband and on the date of incident, the accused Anul Pradhan was the driver who was arrested by the Police. On the basis of the same, the crime has been registered and the matter was taken into investigation. 4. That, during the course of investigation, the continuous efforts were being made to trace the accused persons. After getting information about the accused vehicle from the Transport Office, a team was sent to another State Odisha to trace the accused persons. Three accused in the case, Rajiv Kumar Nayak/present accused applicant, Anuj Pradhan and Bulu Pradhan were taken into custody and separate memorandum statements of all three accused were taken. 5. That, during investigation, the memorandum statement of the present accused applicant Rajiv Kumar Nayak was recorded infront of the relevant witnesses wherein, he has categorically deposed the fact that, in need of money, he has prepared a deed of sale for the pickup vehicle vide Registration Number OD 14 V 4975, registered in his name to Rajeev Kumar Nayak. The name of the owner of the said Vehicle was not transferred, however, it was revealed that, the accused Bulu Pradhan had hired the aforesaid vehicle to driver Anuj Pradhan. The present accused applicant Rajiv Kumar Nayak and Bulu Pradhan 6 together used the aforesaid vehicle to sell Ganja (Contraband) under the guise of selling vegetables. 6. That, during investigation, the memorandum statement of the accused was recorded infront of the relevant witnesses wherein, he has categorically deposed the fact that, the accused Bulu Pradhan had purchased the aforesaid pick up vehicle registered in the name of the present accused applicant Rajiv Kumar Nayak. The sale deed was prepared and the name of the owner of the aforesaid vehicle was not transferred. The driver Anuj Pradhan was hired to drive the vehicle. On 08.02.2024, the accused Bulu Pradhan and the present accused applicant Rajiv Kumar Nayak sent Ganja hidden in a sack under cabbage vegetables in pickup vehicle number OD 14 V 4975 of the accused Anuj Pradhan's to Durg. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation made against the applicants and the fact that during investigation, the memorandum statement of the present accused applicant Rajiv Kumar Nayak was recorded infront of the relevant witnesses wherein, he has categorically deposed the fact that, in need of money, he has prepared a deed of sale for the pickup vehicle vide Registration Number OD 14 V 4975, registered in his name to Rajeev Kumar Nayak. The name of the owner of the said Vehicle was not transferred, however, it was revealed that, the accused Bulu Pradhan had hired the aforesaid vehicle to driver Anuj Pradhan. The present accused applicants Rajiv Kumar Nayak and Bulu Pradhan together used the aforesaid vehicle to sell Ganja (Contraband) under the guise of selling vegetables, which is much above than the commercial quantity, further the applicant, namely, Bulu Pradhan has one previous criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, and the applicant, namely, Rajeev Kumar Nayak has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet 7 has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and the applicants are in jail since 10.11.2025, considering the fact that it is an organized crime, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 10. Accordingly the bail applications are allowed. Let the applicants – Bulu Pradhan (MCRC No. 1196/2026), Rajeev Kumar Nayak (MCRC No.1602/2026) involved in Crime No. 81/2024 registered at Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of BNS. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS. (iv) The applicants 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 8 Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti