The applicant's bail was denied due to possession of a commercial quantity of narcotics and lack of authorization.

Order on Board

01.09.2025

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section

483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.258/2023, registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 21 (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act).

2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, upon searching the applicant/accused who was sitting in an Innova vehicle bearing registration number CG-12-D-2600, 20 ampoules of Buprenorphine Injection IP 2 ml and 20 ampoules of Pheniramine Maleate Injection IP 10 ml were recovered from the right and left pockets of the pants he was wearing. Furthermore, upon searching the said Innova vehicle, 70 ampoules of Buprenorphine Injection IP 2 ml and 70 ampoules of Pheniramine Maleate Injection IP 10 ml were found kept in a black polythene bag under the driver’s seat. Thus, a total of 90 ampoules of Buprenorphine Injection IP 2 ml and 90 ampoules of Pheniramine Maleate Injection IP 10 ml were seized from the possession of the applicant/accused. As per the report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur, annexed to the record, the seized injections contained the psychotropic substance Buprenorphine, which is prohibited under the NDPS Act to be kept in possession without authorization.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as at the time of the occurrence of above-mentioned offence. He submits that the narcotic injections seized from the applicant is less than the commercial amount of the drug seized and the necessary provisions provided under NDPS Act were not followed. He further submits that the PW/04 Bajrang Soni has clearly stated in his deposition that he is unaware of the incident as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and also has not provided any statement to the police, he has also stated that the police has called him at Police Sahayata Kendra, Bus Stand and asked him to sign some documents and the witness has also stated that police has not done any seizure proceedings before him. The PW/06 has also not supported the prosecution story and has stated that he was also called by the police at the Police Sahayata Kendra Bus Stand and has taken signatures on some papers and has not done any proceedings before him and after signing the papers he left for driving his auto and is not aware of any facts and circumstances of the case. He lastly submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 25.04.2023 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he is entitled for grant of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the total quantity of Buprenorphine Injection seized from the applicant/accused is 180 ml, which falls under the category of commercial quantity. The applicant/accused has not produced any document to show that he was authorized to possess the aforesaid prohibited injections in connection with the alleged incident. Hence, his bail application is liable to be dismissed.

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 offence levelled against the applicant and further the fact that the total quantity of Buprenorphine Injection seized from the applicant/accused is 180 ml, which falls under the category of commercial quantity and the applicant/accused has not pr