2026:CGHC:8133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.246 of 2026 Prem Urf Parmeshwar Soni S/o Mahattam Soni Aged About 33 Years R/o Vill- Birkol P.S. And Teh. Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Kotwali Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Nupr Trivedi, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order On Board

13.02.2026

1. The Applicant has preferred this 1^st anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik SISTLA Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.18 apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.567/2025, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 20(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. As per the brief prosecution story, upon receiving information, the police conducted a raid at the house of the co-accused and seized 3 kilograms of contraband ganja. After seizure of the said articles, an offence under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act was registered and, upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. Based on the said allegation, the aforementioned offence has been registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is contended that the true and correct facts were neither properly asserted nor ascertained by the complainant before lodging the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., even if taken at their face value, do not constitute an offence under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act and that the report has been lodged with a mala fide intention to falsely implicate the present Applicant. He further submits that the alleged contraband articles were seized from the possession of the co-accused at a different place and the present Applicant has no connection whatsoever with the said seizure or location. It is lastly submitted that the Applicant has no previous criminal antecedents of similar nature and therefore, he may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the Applicant are serious in nature and relate to offences punishable under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. It is contended that upon receiving credible information, the police conducted a raid and seized contraband ganja and the investigation has revealed the involvement of the present Applicant in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the Applicant’s complicity, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the statutory rigour of the NDPS Act, the application for grant of anticipatory bail may be rejected.

5. The Supreme Court in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)

reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730, and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171, has held that where the accused has been declared absconding and has not cooperated with the investigation, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations made against the present Applicant namely that contraband ganja was seized during the raid conducted by the police and the offence has been registered under Sections 20(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act and further that upon completion of investigation the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, as well as the fact that the present Applicant had remained absconding and has now approached this Court seeking grant of an