Chattisgarh High Court
Hemraj Nag vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:21449
Digitally
signed by
NAFR
ARPAN
ARPAN SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.08
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
16:35:47
+0530
MCRC No. 2361 of 2026
1. Hemraj Nag S/o Dilip Nag Aged About 30 Years R/o Danteshwari
Ward Bailabazar, Jagdalpur Police Station, Bodhghat District- Bastar
(C.G.).
2 - Akash Thakur@ Yunush Thakur S/o Lalit Thakur Aged About 19
Years R/o Danteshwari Ward, Bailabazar Jagdalpur, Police Station
Bodhghat District- Bastar(C.G.) (Cause Tittle Mention As Per Fir And
Challan).
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police
Station, Bodhghat Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) (Wrongly Mention
Ps Kotwali Nagdalpur In Order Sheet )
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.05.2026 2
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 410/2025, registered at Police Station - Bodhghat, Jagadalpur, Dist.Bastar (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for short, the NDPS Act.
2. That, as per the prosecution case, on the basis of a secret information received by an informant, the concerned Police Station conducted a search and seizure operation. During the said search, 155.44 grams of Pyeevon Spas Plus (Dicyclomine Hydrochloride and Paracetamol) capsules were allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the applicants. It is further alleged that the recovered quantity is 155.44 grams, which is stated to be less than the commercial quantity as prescribed. On the basis of the said recovery, the FIR has been registered against the applicants and they have been arrested for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
3. That the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that no recovery was made from their exclusive possession and the alleged contraband, if any, 3 has been falsely shown to have been recovered from joint possession. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is also submitted that from the possession of the applicants less than commercial quantity has been seized, and therefore, it will not attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that there are no any criminal antecedents of the applicants, and he is in jail since 20.09.2025 and the 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 and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicants are specifically named in the case and, acting upon credible secret information, the police conducted a search during which 155.44 grams of Pyeevon Spas Plus Dicyclomine HCL Acetaminophen Capsules were allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the applicants. Learned State counsel submits that the offence alleged against the applicants is serious in nature under the provisions of the NDPS Act and the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes their involvement in the commission of the offence. Merely because the seized quantity is less than commercial quantity does not lessen the gravity of the allegations. 4 It is also apprehended that, if released on bail, the applicants may influence prosecution witnesses or indulge in similar activities. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, material available on record and the fact that the alleged seized quantity of 155.44 grams of Pyeevon Spas Plus capsules is less than commercial quantity, this Court is of the view that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted in the present case. It is further noticed that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicants are in judicial custody since 20.09.2025. There are no criminal antecedents reported against the applicants and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the matter, I am inclined to allow the application.
7. Accordingly, the MCRC is allowed. Let the applicants, Hemraj Nag and Akash Thakur, involved in Crime No. 410/2025, registered at Police Station - Bodhghat, Jagadalpur, Dist.Bastar (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and 5 Psychotropic Substances Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a 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) 6 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Arpan