Chattisgarh High Court
Shiv Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12186
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2400 of 2026
Shiv Baghel S/o Nakul Baghel Aged About 35 Years R/o Kota Stadium, Behind
Om Shri School, Shukla Ji House On Rent, Thana - Sarshwasti Nagar District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Ganj,
District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
SHRIVAS Date:
2026.03.13
18:29:00
+0530 Order on Board
13.03.2026
1.This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 160/2025 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Police Station Ganj received information through a Rojnamcha (RAT) entry on 19.06.2025 regarding the trafficking of contraband material. After observing the mandatory 2 provisions of the NDPS Act, the police conducted a raid at the place of occurrence near Telghani Naka Chowk, Maldhakka Road, Raipur and allegedly recovered 6.40 kg of contraband material (Ganja) from the present applicant. From co-accused Shyam Tandi, 9.50 kg of Ganja was recovered, from Nisha Bagga, 4.20 kg of Ganja was recovered and from Isha Bagga, 4 kg of Ganja was recovered. Thus, from the alleged joint possession of the accused persons, a total of 23.110 kg of Ganja was recovered. Thereafter, an offence in Crime No. 160/2025 came to be registered against the accused persons under Section 20(c) of the NDPS Act (as mentioned in the impugned order). However, it is pertinent to note that while Section 20(c) of the NDPS Act has been mentioned in the impugned order, the FIR mentions Section 20(b), and the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She further submits that prosecution agency has not followed the provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and not taken search warrant from the superior authority. She also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. She further submits that the co-accused persons, namely, Shyam Tandi, Nisha Bagga and Isha Bagga have already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1036 of 2026 and MCRC No.1722 of 2026, vide order dated 23.02.2026, hence the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
3
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as the co-accused persons, Shyam Tandi, Nisha Bagga and Isha Bagga have already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1036 of 2026 and MCRC No.1722 of 2026, vide order dated 23.02.2026, moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is also entitled to be grant regular bail on the ground of parity in this Case.
7. Let the Applicant - Shiv Baghel, involved in Crime No. 160/2025 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 20(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, be released on bail on his furnishing 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 4 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) 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith./ Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sd/-
Abhishek