| |
CDJ 2026 Ch HC 109
|
| Court : High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Case No : MCRC No. 5780 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAMESH SINHA |
| Parties : Kamesh @ Sonu Chandrakar Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Mahasamund |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: Shubhank Tiwari Lohani, Advocate. For the Respondent: Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. |
| Date of Judgment : 06-07-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21(b), 22(b) -
Comparative Citation:
2026 CGHC 27762,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations / Sections Mentioned:
- Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 21(b), 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Section 50 of the NDPS Act
- Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 84 of BNSS
- Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 351 of BNSS
2. Catch Words:
bail, regular bail, possession, NDPS Act, commercial quantity, criminal antecedents, charge‑sheet, trial, sureties, adjournment, proclamation, abuse of liberty of bail
3. Summary:
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for alleged possession of psychotropic substances under Sections 21(b) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution argued that the seized contraband was found in the applicant’s exclusive possession and cited his prior IPC antecedents. The defence contended lack of direct evidence, non‑compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act during seizure, and the applicant’s clean record under the NDPS Act. The court noted that the quantity seized was below commercial threshold, the charge‑sheet was already filed, and the trial would be lengthy. Considering these factors, the court granted bail with conditions of personal appearance, no adjournments, and compliance with stipulated sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Order on Board
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. 167/2026 registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 21(b), 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. As per the prosecution case, upon receiving secret information that co-accused Rakesh Kumar Sahu, along with his associates, was illegally possessing and selling psychotropic substances, the police conducted a raid at the specified location, during which five accused persons, including the present applicant, were apprehended. It is alleged that 06 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus (containing 144 capsules) were recovered from the conscious possession of the present applicant. The seized capsules were found to contain Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride, and Acetaminophen, which are alleged to fall within the ambit of the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. Consequently, the applicant was arrested, and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. The case is presently pending for trial. Hence this bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He further submits that there is no legally admissible or direct evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and that the applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. It is also argued that the alleged recovery is doubtful and has not been made in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law, as the safeguards prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time of search and seizure. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of 06 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus containing Tramadol Hydrochloride, Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, and Acetaminophen does not, by itself, establish conscious and exclusive possession of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, he has two previous criminal antecedents under the IPC out of which, in one case he has already been acquitted and another case has been compromised, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and he is in jail since 30.03.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the contraband article i.e. 06 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus containing Tramadol Hydrochloride, Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, and Acetaminophen were seized from the exclusive possession of the present applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has two previous criminal antecedents under the IPC. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the said contraband article which has been recovered from the exclusive possession of the present applicant, is less than commercial quantity and further the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, though the he has two previous criminal antecedents under the IPC , but out of which, in one case he has already been acquitted and another case has been compromised and in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 30.03.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some 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 - Kamesh Alias Sonu Chandrakar, involved in Crime No. 167/2026 registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 21(b), 22(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 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.
|
| |