Chattisgarh High Court
Shiva Netam @ Baban vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:20196
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3975 of 2026
Shiva Netam @ Baban S/o- Ashok Netam, Aged About 36 Years R/o-
Mathkodwa Para Near Bharti Kirana Stores, Changorabhatta, Police
Digitally
AKHILESH signed by
Station- D.D. Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.)
KUMAR AKHILESH
DEWANGAN KUMAR
DEWANGAN
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station D.D. Nagar District-
Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30/04/2026
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. 618/2025 registered at Police Station 2 D.D. Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per secret information received from the informant, the Police of Police Station D.D. Nagar District- Raipur seized 1.977 kgs of Ganja from the possession of the applicant, which led to the registration of alleged offence against the applicant and subsequently the applicant was arrested. Hence, the bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in jail since 29.12.2025. He further submits that from the possession of the applicant intermediate quantity of the psychotropic substance ganja has been seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as the commercial quantity of ganja as prescribed under the schedule is more than 20 kgs and from the possession of the applicant only 1.977 kgs Ganja has been seized, which is less than the commercial quantity. He also submits that the mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure were not complied with in this case and the conclusion of the trial may take quite long time. He later submits that so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has six criminal antecedents, out of which, in three cases, the applicant has already been acquitted of the charges, copies of the 3 order is annexed in bail application as Annexure A/3. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail.
4. Learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant has total nineteen criminal antecedents, details of which are as follows: Crime No. 168/2010 - Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC, Crime No. 288/2011 - Sections 294, 323, 327, 34 IPC, Crime No. 200/2012 - Sections 294, 506, 323 IPC, Crime No. 303/2013 - Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC, Crime No. 234/2013 - Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC, Crime No. 257/2013
- Section 34(2) Excise Act, Crime No. 219/2014 - Section 25 Arms Act, Crime No. 246/2014 - Section 34(2) Excise Act, Crime No. 157/2015 - Section 25 Arms Act, Crime No. 87/2017 - Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, Crime No. 80/2017 - Sections 294, 506, 323 IPC, Crime No. 214/2017 - Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, Crime No. 71/2019 - Sections 294, 506, 323 IPC, Crime No. 234/2019 - Section 34(2) Excise Act, Crime No. 401/2019 - Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, Crime No. 189/2020 - Sections 294, 506 IPC, Crime No. 116/2020 - Sections 457, 380 IPC, Crime No. 190/2020 - Section 34(2) Excise Act, Crime No. 336/2025 - Section 20(b) NDPS Act and Crime No. 618/2025 - Section 20(b) NDPS Act, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and 4 perused the case diary.
6. Considering the fact that the applicant has nineteen criminal antecedents, details of which are as follows: Crime No. 168/2010
- Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC, Crime No. 288/2011 - Sections 294, 323, 327, 34 IPC, Crime No. 200/2012 - Sections 294, 506, 323 IPC, Crime No. 303/2013 - Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC, Crime No. 234/2013 - Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC, Crime No. 257/2013 - Section 34(2) Excise Act, Crime No. 219/2014 - Section 25 Arms Act, Crime No. 246/2014 - Section 34(2) Excise Act, Crime No. 157/2015 - Section 25 Arms Act, Crime No. 87/2017 - Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, Crime No. 80/2017 - Sections 294, 506, 323 IPC, Crime No. 214/2017 - Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, Crime No. 71/2019 - Sections 294, 506, 323 IPC, Crime No. 234/2019 - Section 34(2) Excise Act, Crime No. 401/2019 - Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, Crime No. 189/2020 - Sections 294, 506 IPC, Crime No. 116/2020 - Sections 457, 380 IPC, Crime No. 190/2020 - Section 34(2) Excise Act and Crime No. 336/2025 - Section 20(b) NDPS Act, which itself shows that the applicant is a habitual offender and has misused the liberty of bail granted to him earlier, further charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court in the present case and 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 5 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 - Shiva Netam @ Baban, involved in Crime No. 618/2025 registered at Police Station D.D. Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is rejected.
8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Akhil