[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Hukumat Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15844
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3101 of 2026
Hukumat Sahu S/o Late Sajan Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Behind Marine
Drive, Subhash Nagar, Devarpara, Police Station - Telibandha, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Arang, Tahsil- Raipur District-
Raipur (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally
signed by
PREETI
PREETI
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
KUMARI
KUMARI Date:
2026.04.08
10:49:56
+0530
Order on Board
07.04.2026
1.
The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail,
as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 0727/2025,
registered at Police Station - Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 20(B) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 2(16[k), 9, 39(1)(?k)(3)(d] [k] x),
48([k)(1)(2), 50, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection), Act, 1972.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 20.12.2025, the police team of Police
Station Arang, Raipur, received secret information from an informant that
a person was searching for customers to sell contraband (ganja). Acting
on this information, the police team conducted a raid and seized 5 kg of
contraband along with two monitor lizards (locally known as "Jangali
Goh"). Based on the said seizure, a First Information Report was
registered.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
contended that the prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory
provisions of the NDPS Act while lodging the FIR against the applicant.
Learned counsel also submits that the charge-sheet has already been
filed. Although the applicant has three previous criminal antecedents, he
has been acquitted in all such cases, as explained in paragraph No. 4(A).
It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since
20.12.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable
amount of time. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant regular bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and submits that a total quantity of alleged contraband
substance which has been recovered from the possession of the
applicant, is less than the commercial quantity. She further submits that
the applicant has six previous criminal antecedents of the applicant,
hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. After hearing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and upon considering the material available on record, particularly
the fact that the quantity of the alleged contraband recovered from the
possession of the applicant is less than the commercial quantity, the
charge-sheet has already been filed, further the applicant has six previous
criminal antecedents, out of which he has been acquitted in three cases,
while the remaining cases are old and stale in nature, the applicant has
been in judicial custody since 20.12.2025, and the conclusion of the trial
is likely to take some time, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail in the present case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant -
Hukumat Sahu involved in Crime No. 0727/2025, registered at Police
Station - Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 20(B) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 and Sections 2(16[k), 9, 39(1)(?k)(3)(d] [k] x), 48([k)(1)(2), 50, 51
of the Wild Life (Protection), Act, 1972, be released on bail on his
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) 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/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Preeti
