[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Irfan Sa Diwan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
2026:CGHC:15581
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.04.07
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
10:52:16
+0530
MCRC No. 3046 of 2026
Irfan Sa Diwan S/o Ismail Sa Diwan Aged About 32 Years R/o Vill. Bhobha
Tekaro, Borsad, District - Anand, Gujrat ...Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Urla Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.) ...Respondent
For Applicant : Ms. Chanchal Verma, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
06.04.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under
Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No.58/2025, registered at Police
Station : Urla Raipur, District - Raipur(C.G) for the offence punishable
under Sections 20 (B) & 27(A) of the NDPS Act 1985.
2. The earlier bail application of the applicant in MCRC No. 8902 of
2025, was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated
07.11.2025, with liberty to file afresh.
3. As per the prosecution story, on the basis of secret information
received from the guard, namely, Rajesh Singh, it was revealed that
the driver of the truck bearing Registration No. GJ-01-JT-4272, which
had come for loading goods from Real Ispat Company, was carrying
40.545 kgs of ganja concealed in four packets kept beneath the
toolbox of the truck. Acting upon the said information, the police
conducted a search and allegedly recovered the contraband from the
truck. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the present applicant,
who was subsequently arrested in connection with the said offence.
However, the applicant has denied all the allegations levelled against
him.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application
is the second bail application. He further submits that the applicant is
merely employed as a driver in a private company, and at the time of
checking, the owner of the vehicle fled from the spot, whereafter the
police falsely implicated the present applicant in the case. It is further
submitted that the applicant has been wrongly arraigned as an
accused as there was no conscious possession of the alleged
contraband on his part. Being only the driver of the vehicle, the
applicant had no knowledge or mens rea regarding the alleged ganja
kept in the vehicle. There is no material available on record to
establish conscious possession, which is a mandatory requirement
under the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that the applicant is neither
the owner of the vehicle nor of the alleged contraband, and no
material has been brought on record to show that he had any
ownership, control, or connection with the seized ganja. No
contraband was recovered from the personal search of the applicant,
and the entire recovery is alleged to have been made from the vehicle
and not from the conscious possession of the applicant. It is further
submitted that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of
being the driver of the vehicle, without any independent evidence
connecting him to the alleged offence, and that the present case is a
routine implication merely to show seizure success. It is also
contended that there has been non-compliance with the mandatory
provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 42 and 50. Lastly, it
is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has
not been involved in any similar offence in the past.
5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that, on the basis of secret information
received from Rajesh Singh, the police intercepted the truck bearing
Registration No. GJ-01-JT-4272, which had come for loading goods
from Real Ispat Company, and recovered 40.545 kgs of ganja
concealed in four packets beneath the toolbox of the truck. She further
submits that the present applicant was the driver of the said vehicle
and was found in conscious possession of the contraband article.
Therefore, considering the quantity of ganja seized and the serious
nature of the allegations, the present applicant is not entitled to be
granted bail in the present case.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and
gravity of the offence levelled against the applicant, and the fact that
this is the second bail application, the earlier bail application filed by
the applicant in MCRC No. 8902 of 2025 having been dismissed as
withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025, and further
considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the
competent Court, coupled with the fact that a huge quantity of
contraband article, i.e., 40.545 kgs of ganja, has been seized from the
possession of the applicant, and further noting that the applicant has
failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the alleged
contraband article seized from his possession, this Court is of the
prima facie view that the recovery of such a substantial quantity
indicates the involvement of the present applicant in the illicit
trafficking of narcotic substances, which constitutes a serious offence
under the NDPS Act. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present
second bail application.
8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant - Irfan Sa
Diwan, involved in Crime No.58/2025, registered at Police Station :
Urla Raipur, District - Raipur(C.G) for the offence punishable under
Sections 20 (B) & 27(A) of the NDPS Act 1985 (C.G) for the offence
punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, is rejected.
9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an
earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible
within a period of Six months from the receipt of a certified copy of
this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
11. The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, is directed to
ensure that the prosecution witnesses appear before the concerned
trial Court, against whom bailable warrants have been issued.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police,
Chhattisgarh through the learned State counsel for information and
necessary action forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
vaibhav
