SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9657

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Manish – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
MCRC No. 6018 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vipin Singh Thakur
For the Respondents: Vaishali Mahilong

The presence of a criminal antecedent under NDPS Act significantly impacts bail decisions when the quantity of contraband exceeds prescribed limits.

Headnote:The present ruling involves an application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS regarding the accused arrested for possession of narcotics. The prosecution alleges the applicant was found with 50 kg of contraband, above commercial quantity. The Court prioritizes previous criminal history in its determination. The applicant's bail was opposed due to serious allegations and a past under the NDPS Act, leading the Court to conclude the application is not suitable for bail. Resultantly, the application for bail is rejected.

Table of Content
1. arguments for and against bail. (Para 3 , 4)
2. court's assessment based on evidence. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's final ruling on bail application. (Para 7)

Order on Board

01/08/2025

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 224/2024 registered at Police Station Outpost- Belgahna, Police Station- Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B)(II-C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 .

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the on March 12, 2024, at

17:30 hours, the applicant/accused was found in possession of 50 kilograms of narcotic substance (ganja) worth Rs.5,00,000/-, kept in two white bags, near Manish Dhaba, Kenda Chowki, Belgahna, Bilaspur District. A vehicle bearing registration No. CG 12 R 2699 and the accused's mobile phone were seized, and he was arrested. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, hence, the bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in jail since 12.03.2024. He further submits that the alleged cannabis has not been recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant, further the mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied with in this case. He also submits that so far as criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2023 under the NDPS Act in the State of Haryana, further the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the quantity of contraband article i.e. 50 Kgs of Ganja recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is much above the commercial quantity as notified under the NDPS Act, further the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2023 under the NDPS Act in the State of Haryana, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the contraband articles i.e. 50 Kgs of Ganja recovered from the possession of the applicant is much above the prescribed commercial quantity threshold and counsel for the applicant has failed to give plausible explanation regarding the same, so far as criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2023 under the NDPS Act in the State of Haryana, as such, he is a habitual offender, 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 is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Manish, involved in Crime No. 224/2024 registered at Police Station Outpost- Belgahna, Police Station- Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B)(II-C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 , is rejected.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top